Larsguy47

One reason Biblical chronologists can relax is because of a recent discovery in a key text now dating the NB Period. A "diary" called the VAT4956. It clearly has over 76 planetary, lunar and solar references that can only be datable to 568BCE and the text is dated to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. But there are two problems here:

1) The text was written 200 years after the fact during the Seleucid Period, and

2) Two of the thought-to-be "errors" in the text turn out to be astronomically coordinated to the same lunar cycle and thus the same lunar year, confirmed to match 511 BCE. The astronomical match-up is too specific to be presumed to be unintentional, but particularly since 511BCE is the date alignment for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar when the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455BCE, the required Biblical chronology for that event.

So, therefore, there potentially exists evidence not only confirming manipulation of Seleucid-Period astronomical texts, but evidence of what apparently was the original chronology for the NB Period, or at least specifically year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE. Curious, that makes year 23 fall in 525BCE, the year of the last deportation, which is 70 years from the Jewish release which by this text can now be dated to 455BCE.

So basically, the archaeologists and Egyptologist so focussed in their own world trying to figure out why Solomon's works are 60 years later than where they are dating it based upon what revised "history" claims, those in the know are just waiting until the evidence becomes so apparent they it will force a correction. When that does, the entire Assyrian Period will be redated by the correct eclipse in 709BCE and Shishak's invasion will drop down from 925BCE to 871BCE, precisely where the Groningen RC14 dating from Rehov dates that event for City IV.


Please note that the middle range of 916-832 is 874 BCE, and thus a reference to the City IV level at Rehov, not City V. City IV in the chart shows a 95.4% relative probability for 918-823BCE which has the mid-range date of 871 BCE, thus Mazar does have City IV in reference in this case when associating it with the Sheshonq invasion.




By contrast, the "Sampled Destruction of City V" in the chart is listed as "945-887 BCE (95.4%), with the mid-range being 916 BCE. Thus City V's mid-range would be 6 years prior to Solomon'sr reign beginning in 910 BCE, and 871BCE mid-range for City IV's destructive level would fall in year 39 of Solomon per the Bible's critical dating, now directly supported by the VAT4956 double-dating discovery confirming the original Biblical timeline.

As noted, per the Bible when the 1st of Cyrus is corrected to 455BCE, Shishak's invasion is dated to 871 BCE, year 39 of Solomon.



Larsguy47

Pataphysician

Since you've started 5 threads, at least this week, in which you've stated all the above positions and more, why should anyone respond when you haven't responded back to counter arguments on these threads YOU STARTED earlier covering the same crap. Is this an attempt at argument by exhaustion?

Larsguy47

This is presented separately from the historical implication of the double dating in the VAT4956 since some might like to understand this and discuss it as an isolated issue. The simplest way though to explain it is to tell HOW and WHY:

WHY IT WAS DONE:
To preserve some secret reference to the original chronology that was being revised during the Seleucid Period since all the original Babylonian astronomical texts were being destroyed. Because there was a 57-year discrepancy during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which falls in the 19-year luni-solar cycle, lunar phases and positions were similar (within 36 hours) in both the revised and original chronology for this period. This set the opportunity to secretly hide some of the original lunar references in a text that was otherwise revised to the new chronology.

HOW IT WAS DONE:
First, a point where the moon can be accurately measured in its course was chosen. When the moon passes from Leo into Virgo past sigma-Leonis (last star in Leo) toward beta-Virginis (first star in Virgo) it does so in a parallel manner to both stars which are in line with the lunar path. As noted above, the moon was no more than 36 hours difference for all the years 19 years apart for the years 511, 530, 549 and 568 BCE. So a "diary" was created from the 638BCE astronomical texts, several from each month, amounting to over 140 references over the entire year. But for certain months, when the moon was passing by sigma-Leonis ("Rear Foot of the Lion"/Gir ar sa UR-A) and beta-Virginis ("Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot"/MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A) the creators of the text inserted tablets from 511BCE, the original dating. This was then handed over to a professional copyist who created a new text incorporating all the astronomical texts from both dates and simply dated the edge as "Year 37 Nebuchadnezzar."

As a result, upon modern astronomical recalculation of the references in the text, two different scholars found an error of about one day in Lines 3 and 14 (Sachs/Hunger and P.V. Neugebaur, respectively). It was assumed, of course, not matching 568BCE that they were simply "scribal errors" where the scribes guessed where the moon was or made an error. It is not likely they would have guessed, however, since elsewhere where the text was broken off they indicated it was broken off, so they certainly weren't filling in some missing information and guessing about it. Further, since both "errors" match 511BCE, the original dating from the Bible for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, it is clear this must have been a secret attempt to hide these references in a text that would not have been destroyed. The idea was to make these secret references and then make many copies of the text, presuming that some of them would survive through the ages. A similar double-dated text dating year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar to 541BCE has five extant copies (Strm Kambyses 400). Thus the scribes likely didn't know from which years these individual tablets were coming from and only an astronomer actually calculating and comparing the lunar course would have noted the "error."

But finally, as a result, the double dating not only shows how clever they were in trying to hide the original chronology but tells us precisely what the changes were and what the original chronology was. What is nice about this "conspiracy theory" now, though, is that the only other scientific means other than astronomy for establishing "absolute dating", which is through RC14, is the findings at Rehov (Rehov RC14 Dating Results) of a large sample of burned grains at the time of Shishak's invasion enabling rather precise dating of that event that is directly in line with the VAT4956 dating for 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.

That is, a single eclipse event during the Assyrian period in the limmu list lists an astronomical event, a solar eclipse in month 3, Simanu. This is used to fix the dating for the entire Assyrian Period. When the revised chronology astronomical texts are used for dating the NB Period where year 37, for instance, falls in 568BCE, then the 763BCE eclipse is used to date the Assyrian Period, though it is not usually customary to early-date the year by the Babylonians:

However, when 511BCE (the original dating) is used, which is 57 years later, then the natural-occurring third-month solar eclipse is used dated to 709BCE. This, in turn would date Shishak's invasion 54 years later from 925BCE to 871BCE, and 871BCE is right in the middle of the highest probable range for the end of that City IV level which is associated with Sheshonq's invasion. So there is a compatibility and confirmation between "science and technology" for the correct original dating for the NB Period, one that completely confirms the Biblical dating. That is, when 511BCE is dated to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, then year 23 falls in 525BCE. Year 23 is the year of the last deportation (Jer. 52:30) and thus exactly 70 years to the 1st of Cyrus, which now gets dated to 455BCE. That is the well-known prophecy date for beginning of the "70 weeks" prophecy where the Messiah appears 483 years (69 weeks) after the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem." Jesus was baptized in the 15th of Tiberius, 29 CE, so the prophecy must begin in 455 BCE, the year Jerusalem began to be rebuilt.


That's it basically. That's the technical argument for using the VAT4956 to redate the NB Period.

THALE'S ECLIPSE REDATING: Interestingly enough, when this is done, the Thales eclipse event suddenly becomes scientifically correct for it's original event/date as well:

Thales eclipse dating corrected!


Larsguy47

GRAPHICS FOR 511 BCE ASTROMATCHING:


LINE 3:



LINE 14:

Larsguy47

Not at all. These are just some of the TECHNICAL aspects not covered in other posts. It seems like "crap", it's true, if you lack the expertise in the subject since, indeed, so much is not told to us in these discussions. For instance, Finkelstein's entire argument is totally predicated on whether the 763BCE eclipse is actually correctly dated. It is not the "customary" dating by the Babylonians who would have dated it in month 2. Once that dating falls, then he'll have to make comparisons with whatever the new alignment is. Thus as long as there is a subjective historical aspect to his arguments, depending on popular history, his archaeological evaluations are either right on point simply irrelevant. What he should have done in the least, since so much of this is still under debate, was simply include more than one of the timeline theories and compared that to his archaeological findings. For instance, noting those dating that eclipse to 763BCE would presume revisionism in the Bible since Solomon arrives to early. For Jehovah's witnesses who date Solomon even earlier by some 67 years or so, it definitely is out of the question. But for those who feel Martin Anstey's dating is more Biblically correct who would date Solomon's rule later between 910-870BCE, then the archaeology is more compatible with the buildings claimed to have been built by him, etc. Then he doesn't get blasted for being biased to one "historical" preference, having little to do which his expertise as an archaeologist.

So I'm not really saying believe this, only that it's out here and being ignored. This is AWARENESS. Some things in the past can never be proven by archaeology and this might be one of them, but at least we can be aware of the theory and make our own comparisons. The VAT4956 double dating to 511BCE aligns specifically with Biblical dating for year 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus. I think that's significant. Different scholars will tell you Lines 3 and 14 don't match 568BCE, but they don't mention both these references fit 511BCE (perhaps they didn't realize back then before we had electronic programs for astronomy to make quick and more accurate comparisons), so not entirely their fault.

So anyway, did I crash and burn on the other threads? Plato did actually advise on the Peloponnesian War it seems before he was born? Via his mother? before she was actually pregnant? I can see that...

Sort of...

Plus I could see where 1000 scientists all coming up with 871 BCE for the end of City IV at Rehov could have been drinking or something or stoned on drugs and that might explain why they got this dating 54 years too late. You never know, scientists are like everybody else. They are under pressure, they have problems and drugs are a constant temptation, so who knows why they came up with such misleading dates? You know? :huh:

So I see your point. Let's keep life simple. Close our eyes. Listen to what the Catholic Church has laid down for us over the centuries. Let's trust the people who have more experience than we do about these things and a tried and true reputation for maintaining the truth, plus enough money to pay for professional institutions to keep those conspiracy theories at bay. I'm beginning to see your point. :devil:

You know. We don't know. We're not that smart, obviously. Let's let the professionals advise us. I see that. Truly.


Larsguy47

Weltall

At what point does this cease to be mildly amusing in a masochistic way and graduate to flat out annoying? Oh wait, I think it was three or four of these threads ago.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

RED DAVE: Here's the basics.

Martin Anstey in the 1800's wrote "The Romance of Bible Chronology" and deduced there was an 82-year discrepancy between the Bible's absolute history and that of the secular timeline at the time of Cyrus. That's because of the "70 weeks" prophecy which can only be correctly fulfilled in connection with the 1st of Cyrus for when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem."

This was investigated and it was discovered where they 82 extra years came from. Basically 56 years of extra Greek history combined with a reduction of the Neo-Babylonian Period of 26 years. In other words, comparing the Bible to the revised timeline from the Greeks and Persians, the NB Period is 26 years too short and the Persian Period 56 years too long. That combination peaks at the time of Cyrus to create an 82-year distortion. The correction is as follows.

NB PERIOD ADD 26 YEARS:
Nebuchadnezzar II +2
Evil-Merodach +16
Nabonidus +2
Darius, The Mede +6
----------------------------
TOTAL: +26



PERSIAN PERIOD SUBTRACT HISTORICAL 82 YEARS:
Kambyses -1
Darius I -30
Xerxes -21
Art2 -30
TOTAL: -82


When 455 BCE is established as the 1st of Cyrus the Exodus becomes specific to 1386 BCE. This is consistent with:

1. The KTU 1.78 dating year 12 of Akhenaten to 1375BCE when Manetho's reference that year 17 of Apophis is year Joseph becomes vizier, meaning Exodus is 215 years from 25th of Apophis, which is 1st of Akhenaten

2. Fall of Jericho is 1346 BCE. This is consistent with Kathleen Kenyon's dating that fall by the Israelities between 1350-1325 BCE.

3. RC14 DATING: 1386BCE dates 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and his rule from 910-870BCE. Year 39 of Solomon for Shishak's invasion is dated to 871BCE. RC14 dating from Rehov is 99% "relative probability" for 874-867BCE, confirming best possible scientific dating compatible with Bible.

4. Archaeological dating: Israel Finkelstein confirms Philistine pottery Period extends "well into 10th century BCE" and thus conflicts with the current timing for David at 1010-970BCE. The above dating dates David's rule as 950-910 BCE, which does not conflict with Philistine pottery dating.

5. Currently there are near identical 6-chambered gates found at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo believed built by Solomon linked to the palaces found at Jezreel and the City IV level at Rehov. Rehov and Megiddo are mentioned in Shishak's inscription as cities conquered. Thus these palaces would have been built by Solomon, confirming the Bible is true.

6. If 1386BCE is the date of the Exodus, and the first "jubilee" in a 70-year jubilee period celebrates the 70th week with the final restoration of the Jews to their Holy Land, 455BCE/1386BCE predicts that would occur in 1947 AD. That is a week of jubilees of 49 years is 3430 years. Add 49 years to 1386BCE to get the beginning of the first 490-year day in 1435BCE. Subtract 3430 years (49 x 70 = 3430, or 490 x 7 = 3430) to get 1996, the end of that week. The last 49 years is the 70th jubilee week of 49 years (70 x 49). The jubilee is the first year of each 49, so 1996 minus 49 = 1947.

1386BCE is 1st jubilee, 455BCE is 20th and 1947 is 69th. After 1996 Jews are freed from the Covenant.

I hope you took NOTES, Red.

Larsguy48

Larsguy47

Yeah, kinda hard to keep up sometimes, isn't it?

Larsguy47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
(emphasis added)

Several points:

1. I'm glad to hear that I'm released from the Covenant. I've been wanting to eat bacon for 63 years.

2. On the other hand, there is another consideration. I notice that, according to my archives, the person who has been posting here has been known as Larsguy47, which, of course, corresponds to 1947.

3. However, the person who signed the above post is Larsguy48. This would mean that the actual end of the Covenant is 1997, not 1996.

4. Continuing this argument, is Larsguy47 actually Larsguy48? I note that 47 + 48 = 95. Coincidence? So there is the distinct possibility that the end of the Covenant actually ended in 1995.

5. Now, here's where it really gets interesting. In 1996, I had a heart attack, which was due to excess cholesterol. Bacon, as we know, is loaded with cholesterol. This was obviously due to the end of the Covenant in 1996.

6. However, if the Covenant actually ended in 1995, did I actually have the heart attack in 1995. Or if it ended in 1997, did I have my attack in 1997?

7. I have documents and photographs pointing to 1996, and my wife assures me that 1996 is the correct year.

8. But documents can be forged, and my wife once gave me my birthday present on my birthday after sunset, which is actually, according to Jewish Law, actually the day after my birthday. So can she be trusted?

Too many questions.

RED DAVE

spin

Would you cite the contents of the text, Vat4956, please, or at least provide a link to the actual text. It's not like I have it in an anthology or something. You have the habit of talking crap but it's hard to tell in this case -- as there is no way to check the source of your ravings.