Larsguy47

Show me!

I'm WRONG all the time and am always LEARNING new things and refinements!!! Just give me some references I can follow-up on if you can and the more speciifc the quotes the better.

Thanks!!!

But I hasten to remind you at the astronomical data related to the NB Period is in the middle of a HUGE battle now ongoing elsewhere. So be sure to update. If you want some pointers I'll be glad to give you some.

Looking forward to hearing from you. But just to OVERVIEW my general position on the VAT4956:

A. Sachs/H. Hunger who translated the VAT4956 already noted an error in Line 3 of about a day earlier. P.V. Neugebauer noted the error in Line 14 of about a day earlier. This was way back when. So the mismatches were already established. Later with computerized astronomy programs, the two one-day-earlier "errors" were compared and discovered to belong to the same lunar cycle matchable to 511 BCE.

That is, Line 3's reference to the "moon 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion (sigma-Leonis) on the 9th is Nisan (month 1)" is a mismatch for 568BCE, the dating for all the other references in the text (except line 14). That position for that day is closer to where the moon was on the 8th.

Likewise, Line 14 gives the lunar position of 1 cubit "NIM BID"/in front of the Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot on the 5th of Sivan (3rd month)." But that is not the position on the 5th of Sivan in 568BCE. Thus an "error" was noted of about a day, since the moon was closer to that position the day before.

However, both those reference are accurate for those specific dates in 511BCE, as the astrographs demonstrate.

So you have an "error"/mismatch for two references in the specific place where the moon passes by these two stars, sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis in 568BCE, but turn out to be the precise position in 511BCE.

Because of the precision it would take to GUESS both locations for a specific year, one PRESUMPTION for the "errors" in this text is that they were not scribal errors but insertions from 511BCE among the tablets used to create the diary. But WHY?

Is 511BCE relevant in any way to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar?

Maybe. Maybe not.

AT this point, simply being thorough and comprehensive, we merely compare that dating with any other timelines associated with the rule of Nebuchadnezzar to see what we come up with. When this is done, it turns out to align with the Martin Anstey timeline aligning year 1 of Cyrus 483 years from the baptism of Christ in [sic] 29 CE. That is, when the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455BCE, then per Josephus, the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar occurring 70 years earlier, would fall in 525BCE. 525BCE for year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar would date his 37th year in 511BCE.

So the question is:

IS THIS ANOTHER COINCIDENCE?

Or were the Jews working as astronomers during the Seleucid Period, facing the destruction of all the original Babylonian astronomical texts afraid and figured out a way to preserve a dated reference to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar since his rule is very well documented in the Bible?

If there's no connection, then there's no connection! Just a fluke! BUT, if we assume there is a connection, then this will redate the NB Period (or at least the reign of Nebuchadnezzar) and will preempt any other astronomical reference except an original/contemporary one from the NB Period. That is, any astronomical texts aligning to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 568BCE is now dismissible via the VAT4956.

But what is especially critical here is that the VAT4956 doesn't simply expose a revision and summarily potentially dismiss 568BCE as a fabricated date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, it does it in a way that requires the absolute fixed redating of that year to 511BCE. Therefore, there is zero flexibility attached to the dismissal.

Interestingly enough, though, the predictable Thales eclipse in Ionia is possible with this redating but not with the current 585BCE dating for that event.

That's my "theory" anyway.

So what do you think?

LG47

Larsguy47

You always say that. I apologize if I missed one of your posts or you misinterpreted my explanation as an answer to one of your questions. But it is possible I did miss one of your posts, but I don't think I missed that many. If there are some you specifically have in mind, you can simply post the link and I'll go back there and do what I call a "line-for-line" for you. You know, where I answer every line of your post instead of say "snipping" things that I don't necessary feel a need to comment on. I'll be GLAD to do that.

So, next time you accuse me of jumping from one thread to the other without reasonable amount of time to answer and you do actually want a reply, then I will be more than happy to post that. But also it's possible I've already posted a reply but you have missed it. In that case, I can link you to my reply and we can go from there.

Keep in mind I don't look in every single discussion board for your posts, so if you think I've missed something be sure to LINK what you have in mind and I'll definitely respond. I have missed some replies in the past that some have wanted a response to and they link me to the original post or repost their question and then I gladly respond.

So, just for the record, I'm presuming I've answered the posts where there are questions until you show me otherwise. I may have indeed, missed some, but it is not intentional or to avoid anything.

Thanks.

LG47

Larsguy47

Lots of people are. Well, intuitive people are...

Have you read either of the two books I published?

LG47

Sheshbazzar

There were a few questions posed to you in POST #72 of your thread, "Gospels purposely written to confuse nonbelievers!" that you have not yet replied to.
We may have proceeded without you, but we have not forgotten you.

Larsguy47

Thanks, I'll go back there and reply to #72!!! Appreciated. LG47

RED DAVE

Titles, links. Please.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

A PLAIN ENGLISH EXPLANATION OF THE VAT4956 DOUBLE-DATING

Because so few people understand what an astronomical "diary" is and how there can be "double-dating" in text, I'm offering this simple and short explanation, not related to the conspiracy but just some historical background on what we're dealing with.

Now. Note that the VAT56 originally contained over 140 astronomical references of the position of the sun, moon and various planets for certain days during each month of 568BCE. Since these references were recorded on clay tablets, it meant that the original references were on a lot of uniform individual tablets. These daily tablets were then then neatly filed in order per month, perhaps in a tray box that was labelled with the year of the king.

This process continues for each throughout the Neo-Babylonian Period. Thus you have a tray of 140 texts from 568BCE as well as every other year including 511BCE. Now imagine the tray from 568BCE is labelled "Year One of Nabopolassar" and the tray with the 511BCE tablets is labeleld "Year 37 Nebuchadnezzar."

Now imagine just for the fun of it one day, an astronomer priest who wants to play some games on his colleagues, goes in and pulls the 568BCE tray labelled "Year One Nabopollassar" and also the tray labelled "Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar." He then erases the original names and switches them, so that the 511 BC tray are now labelled "Year One Nabopolassar" and the 568BCE tray is now labelled "Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar." Finally, to make the game a little more fun, he decides as well to mix and match a couple of the lunar references when the moon passes by either the star sigma-Leonis or beta-Virginis which are good star positions for measuring the lunar position. So in month 1, when the moon is passing by these stars on the 9th of the month, he switches the texts, so that the 9th of Nisan from 511BCE is now in the 568BCE tray and visa versa. This is also done for the third month, Sivan, where the moon is again close to beta-Virginis on the 5th, so the texts are switched. What a mess.

He then takes both mislabeled trays with mixed texts out to a copyist who copies the information from all the texts in each tray onto a single text, creating a "diary" of what's in each tray. They make about 20 copies so that each student will have a copy who then have to figure out what is what. It's their job to restore everything the way it is supposed to be. When the copies are made, the trays are labelled back correctly and the displaced texts restored to the original trays.

The students have to then figure out which tablets actually belong to 511BCE and which belong to 568BCE. If they get everything right then they graduate. If they don't, they have to service the harem, keeping hundreds of women satisfied every day. Needless to say, a lot of the astronomer students were flunking out even though this exercise was really quite simple. There was a suspicion it had to do with just wanting to service the harem, but there was this one astronomer student, though, who a bit different. He really didn't like servicing the women but rather liked trying on their expensive robes. He's was a bit different. Interestingly, he was the only student that actually figured everything out. So he graduated and was hired as an astronomer assistant. But for some reason he kept the test diary that had the wrong label and the mixed texts. And that is what was found and labelled the VAT4956.

Or something very unlike the above....


LG47

Barbarian

Since when is a cubit a measurement unit of angles? This makes you sound as if you operated under the assumption that there is such a thing as a celestial dome, and we can actually measure distances on it. Anyway, such a dome would have to hang pretty low for a distance of a cubit on it to be observable from the surface of Earth.

RED DAVE

I can imagine all that happening. Now, imagine this:

It's about as realistic as your other fantasy.

RED DAVE

Hex

That was the very -first- time I said that, Lars. The thing that I have made mention about is that your posts here are like a broken record.

You put forth your data,
Someone pokes a hole in it here or there,
You thank them,
Then spout the same stuff again, not learning from the logical or evidential problem in your base data.

And you expect that through repetition, we will somehow move from our logical stance to match yours which we don't feel is valid.

As for snipping, I am no longer going to deal with things in your posts that are not relevant to the discussion, or have been run though ad nauseum where you refuse to recognize the reasons why your sources are not be accepted as valid for the discussions at hand. It's that simple.

Actually, the thread-hopping thing I was pointing out was simply the sheer number of threads that you start that all end up with the same arguement, with Kenyon, Tel Rehov C-14 dates, Amenhotep III/ Akhenaten, Multiple rulers, and the myriad of mistakes made by astronomical/historical scholars in trying to put chronicles to an exact date.

I don't expect you to read every thread I post in. Or even every thread on this subforum. But, since you only have two arguements (Exodus Dating and Issues with the Persian Conquest times) why not confine them to two threads, rather than running through one thread until people are fed up and then just restating the same arguement in a new thread with a different name? And I'm not the only one who's noticed it ...