Larsguy47

Please note, this all-important eclipse is in question of being misdated by 54 years. The Babylonians didn't predate their years as the Jews did, at least not per their later practices. Even Wikipedia notes this and thus questions this eclipse:

This 763 BCE eclipse was part of a very, very, very, very rare series of eclipses occurring 54 years 1 month (exeligmos cycle) apart, but also 15 degrees farther north. That means if a total eclipse was observed by astronomers, they could predict both time and location of the next eclipse in the series.



This eclipse track chart is hard to understand but basically it shows you the succession of these rare eclipses that occurred over the Middle East during this time. The 817BCE, 763BCE and 709BCE eclipses would have been experienced in Assyria, with the 763BCE experienced as a total eclipse. Thus the 709BCE would not only have been a predictable eclipse by the Assyrians since they experienced the precise location of the total eclipse, explaining why it became a social event and thus listed in the limmu list, but it is also the "customary" dating for month three. That is, these eclipse occurring every 54 years and 1 month later, if using the customary Babylonian dating where the 1st month occurs after the equinox, would have dated year 817BCE in month one, year 763BCE in month two, year 709BCE in month three, etc. That is, the eclipse could not have been predicted without this known formula. So there are two major reasons for correcting this eclipse reference to 709BCE.

The reason why this reference thus even survived past revisionism of other astronomical referenes is because the Jews optionally pre-dated their year as long as Passover was after the equinox (full moon). Thus where the Babylonians would have inserted a 13th intercalary month, the Jews might opt to make that the first month of the year. Since that was a known option by the time of the Seleucid Period, the 763BCE eclipse reference could be left as a reference since it was so close to the revised chronology which emerged from the Neo-Babylonian Period 56 years earlier than the true chronology. The 763BCE eclipse misdaed to month 3, was a 54-year adaptation.

But now, this farce is exposed by the only other means of absolute dating available, RC14 dating. That dates Shishak's invasion at Rehov quite precisely between 874-867 BCE at 99% relative probability, but 925BCE (the date based upon the 763BCE eclipse) to only 5% relative probability; we we know the 925BCE dating and that eclipse dated to 763BCE is incorrect, and the 709BCE reference is better matched, both by usual custom and circumstance that it was a rare (probably the first! Thales' eclipse based upon this method was the second!) predictable eclipse. If this was the first prediction of a solar eclipse it would have been a major, major social event and certainly mentioned as one of the major events of the year, explaining why it is the only eclipse mentioned in the limmu lists, which is a secular annual reference, not one dealing with astronomical events generally.

So with all due respect, at this time, when making comparisons, both the 763BCE generated dating and the 709BCE generated dating needs to be made now. The 763BCE-based timeline is not the only potential timeline to compare with the Biblical timeline now.

Larsgury47

Larsguy47

As I quoted before, David, there is no true absolute comparison to the Biblical dating for this interval because some scholars believe these lists are not sequential but have overlapping rulerships and thus is deceptively longer than it should be. Because of that, one cannot claime specifically there is a true contradiction between the Biblical relative timeline and the Egyptian timeline.

This comparison would need to be quite a bit more specific and likely will remain inconclusive unless you can like a specific year of rulership with a specific astronomical event. And that means an absolute dating, for instance giving the position of Venus, Saturn and Mars on a certain lunar date in the year of a certain king. I don't think that exists in the Egyptian timeline. The only astronomical references is a weak application of the Sothis dating, and this KTU 1.78 eclipse alledgely occurring around the 12th year of Akhenaten. These are the only two chances at any fixed date challenges to the Biblical timeline as far as Egyptian records.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Hello Steven!

With all due respect since this is a challenge to "Biblical inerrantists", I think the major timelines should be determined by them and not by those reading the Bible themselves in a superficial manner and coming up with their own dates.

Thus I'll note that some of the more strict or aggressive Biblical chronologists coordinate everything in the Bible related to chronology including prophecies. I that regard, there is a period of "70 jubilees" related to a Covenant Week for the Jews from the time of Moses until their final restoration to their Promised Land in 1947. Once that interval period is locked into a single specific date, then the entire week of 3430 years becomes fixed. From that point, you can date back to the Flood or creation. The advantage of this reference though, is you skip all the problems and complications of the precise history during this period.

The Covenant Week is 7 days of 490 years each. Each 490 years is 10 jubilees each. Each jubilee is the 50th year for the previous 49, but also the 1st of the next 49. Thus 7 days of 10 jubilees each is 70 jubilee periods, with the last 49 years fulfilling the "70th jubilee". When that is presumed to have been fulfilled with the final return of the Jews to their homeland in 1947, 1947 becomes the critical date of fixation for this period for any absolute relative dating for the Bible, including the Exodus, which is the first jubilee occurring 49 years after the beginning of this Covenant Week of 3430 years (490 x 7 = 3430, or 70 x 49 = 3430).

The 3430-year week thus dates from 1435BCE to 1996AD, specifically and the Exodus, 49 years after the week begins is FIXED to 1386BCE.

From the date of the Exodus in 1386BCE, the Abrahamic Covenant occurs 430 years earlier in 1816 BCE. The Flood begin 427 years earlier than that in 2243 BCE, and the Creation of Adam 1656 years earlier in c. 3899 BCE.

So in relation to the 6000/1000 year chronology some believe is in place as far as presuming the date of the 1000 year reign of Christ as part of 7000 years from Creation, we start with 2102 AD as 6000 years from the creation of Christ. But don't let that late date fool you! It must be adjusted and imprisely so.

Thus since Jesus was 30 when he became the messiah and it is likely Adam would have been 30 before Eve was created we presume God gave Adam time to grow up to be emotionally and chronology an adult, so we push back his marriage to Eve by 30 years, giving us 2132AD. The end of the 6th Creative day of 7000 years did not end until after the Creation of Eve, so this presumes it ended shortly after, with Eve being the last created. However the 2132 AD date is reduced by 120 years since after the millennium Satan is let loose for a short while. Usually test periods are 40 years. Satan has 40 years to test the post-millennial population. After that, Judgment Day occurs and everybody who was ever born will get their chance to have eternal life if they were "righteous" during their life. They will be judged. The righteous will get life and the unrighteous will undergo a final "second death". At this point everything is considered to be back to God's original intent for mankind and this is when he is said to "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5) This suggests the beginning of a New Creative Week of 7000 years. Judgment Day, if we presume it would take 70 or 80 years would have to be subracted from the time during the 7th Creative day. So converatively assigning 80 years to Judgment Day and 40 years to Satan's time of trial for the post-millennial population, we substract 120 years from 2132AD to get 2012 AD. So that's basically that story, with some flexibility and guessing, of course, for those who sometimes factor in those issues for the Biblical timeline.

So everything's cool as far as the Biblical timeline is concerned, even the "big prophetic pattern picture"; at least until 2012 AD, anyway!:devil1:

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Great! You can send it to me by e-mail in the meantime!!! Love to see it.

Thanks!

Larsguy47

Hex

D'oh!

Larsguy47

Rohl has had a HUGE SETBACK of late because of the KTU 1.78 eclipse, which used to be a cornerstone of his dating. He uses that eclipse dated to 1012 BCE to move the Amarna Period down to the time of David. But his translation falls apart once you apply "Egyptian" astronomical concepts. When this was communicated to the Rohl people, they told me they were not going to emphasize that eclipse event as a major part of their thesis any more. But they had no choice!

Basically, since Egypt had a concept of the hour and also educated all the principals in Canaan in Egypt, it's logical to presume that concepts of astronomy from Egypt might affect Ugarit; obviously it would. In this text, it associates the sun with entering "her gate", which might seem strange but in Egypt the sun specifically travels through 12 gates of Hathor, the female goddess of the night. Thus a reference to "entering the sun through HER gate" becomes a common reference for sunrise in Egypt, where the sun represented as calf enters through the vulva of Hathor every morning (i.e. Hathor swallows the sun in the evening and it travels through her body through 12 gates during the night, emerging through her final gate represented by two sycamore trees, reborn at sunrise).





Bovine images from Egypt

So basically the better translation would simply mean the sun rose in RESHEP which in Egypt was the "Lord/Bull of Heaven" a reference to Taurus. Having noted that, however, B++ which Rohl had preferred the translatin of "was shamed" rather than "six, sixth" was based upon the contradiction for a solar eclipse on the 6th "day" of the month, those eclipses occurring on the last day of the month (the technical new moon). However, in Egypt the concept of the hour has to be considered, in which case B++ would refer to the timing of the eclipse occurring in the sixth hour, which would be between 5am-6am. In that case, all potential eclipses Rohl had presented are eliminated as potentials since only the 1375BCE eclipse, dated during the traditional Amarna Period anyway, would work. Thus 1375BCE becomes the potential fixed date for Akhenaten. This represents only an 8-year adjustment as compared to where he was already being dated.

Only the 1375BCE eclipse, the eclipse occurring during the conventional Amarna Period, occurs between 5am and 6am, the "sixth hour" and apparent reference to this eclipse.

Therefore, besides now dropping this eclipse as a key element to his redating, the eclipse dating forced to occur in 1375BCE now becomes a hostile witness against him for his new Amarna Period dating theories. He now hopes to establish this solely on the literary implications of David and Akhenaten.


Larsguy47

Toto

To people who asked for Dean's (aka Pervy) spreadsheet before reading the entire thread, it is here in html format.

3DJay

Hehe, man invented the wheel, before God invented man. Ergo, God must also be a man...which, may very well be supported by Sumerian mythology.


Peace

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent...asty_2575-2134

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepi_II_Neferkare

Are you seriously asserting that right smack during the longest reign in Egyptian history, the entire population of Egypt was wiped out, and, then, its entire society, including economy, language and religion, was reconsituted.

AND NO ONE NOTICED?

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Fascinating. But just as a general note from a super inerrantist, the historical references you compare with the Bible must be done on a case-by-case basis, because some Bible-bashers grossly distort the Biblical history or ignore refinements (i.e. like co-rulerships) and that makes a huge difference in the criticisms (i.e. whether Shishak comes during the the reign of Solomon during the united kingdom or just after during the divided kingdom, etc.).

Also, you're only going to get contradicting comparisons when you go strictly "historical" in this discussion. Most Biblical chronology discussions therefore, quickly move to astronomical dating and archaeological dating contradictions. For instance, the Bible says there were 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus. This is also confirmed by Josephus. So the Jews and the Bible (Judeo-Biblical) timeline for this interval makes the NB Period 26 years longer than the surviving records. But one of the key surviving records, the "Babylonian Chronicle" itself notes that it is a copy from year 22 of Darius (likely Darius II). So it is automatically presumed to be a revised document and thus would not be considered a critical challenge to the Biblical history in this event. Where's the original chronicle? It's no where. Where are the original astronomical texts which survived to the Seleucid Period but are nowhere to be found now?

Same with Greek historians. You've got Xenophon and Herodotus claiming Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages and Ktesias claiming he was his son-in-law. Or you have characters like "Darius, the Mede" which the Bible assigns a 6-year rule between the fall of Babylon and the 1st of Cyrus, but that chronologists like Sir Isaac Newton only assign 2 years while the Jews were still in exile, or others zero years, presuming Cyrus began his rule at the same time and they were co-rulers. Or you have some references such as the "The Delian Problem" placing Plato as an adult when the Peloponnesian War began in 430 BCE when he wasn't born until 428BCE. How do you resolve this, Dean?

Or what about Xerxes? The Bible claims that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. Plutarch who wrote about the life of Themistocles couldn't make up his mind which king, Xerxes or Artaxerxes, that Themistocles fled to because of contradictory historical references in this regard. But the detailed description of this event is before Xerxes, not Artaxerxes, the "traditional" historical decision about this.

So the "inerrantists" sort of expect you to fix this first before aggressively challenging the Biblical history versus secular history. In this case, traditional history simply believed the propaganda put out by Themistocles to save Xerxes, when he found out he was going by the name of Artaxerxes in Persia, which was the common practice of Persian kings, to adopt a new name when they became king. The Greeks knew that Themistocles fled during the reign of Xerxes so completely contradict that he went to Artaxerxes, but presumed Xerxes died soon after rather than figuring out they were the same king.

So the Bible requires Xerxes and Artaxerxes to be the same king, and the Greek historical side is sitting on a huge nonconfirmation for when he began his rule.

But, I can save you a lot of trouble here.

The VAT4956, an astronomical text from the Seleucid Period, actually was designed to hide the original chronology from the Neo-Babylonian Period. It did this by two lunar references during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar when the moon passes by the stars of sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis, likely chosen since besides passing close to these prominent stars, it also passed by them in a parallel manner, giving good time/position comparison. Since the chronology at this point was 57 years revised, it fell on the 19-year lunisolar cycle (3 x 19 = 57) and thus the lunar dating (phase) and solar dating (zodiac position) were within a day or so for both 511BCE and 568BCE. So the diary was created with over a hundred references both planetary and solar, plus lunar to create a "politically correct" document to hide the 511BCE lunar references which would appear as "errors" of less than 48 hours in the text. The "errors" in Lines 3 and 14 were always noted, but until recently with the advent of computerized astro programs were not compared. When they were compared the confirmed the same lunar cycle and year to 511BCE. Presumably, therefore, an intentional inclusion in this text, it confirms the original chronology of 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.

Having noted that, for an "inerrantist", the 511 BCE dating is more scary than the 568BCE dating from this test, since 568BCE is dismissed by this fraudulent and manipulated text from 200 years later, but with the implication that 511BCE was the original dating. Thus we compare 455BCE, our best dating for the 1st of Cyrus with 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, not 568BCE, which is a confirmed bogus date by this astrotext. When we do, it turns out to be the same ABSOLUTE DATING. That is, 70 years from 455BCE makes 525BCE as year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, the year of the last deportation. That means year 37 falls in 511BCE.

So the dating for the fall of Jerusalem in 587BCE, which is critically based on this astronoimcal text, is now in limbo with the alternative dating to 511BCE for this text being more accurate "historically." But as you see, this astro-historical comparison agrees 100% with the Bible's dating.

So basically, once the astronomy and latest RC14 dating that can be used for dating a specific event is factored in, correcting the secular timeline, then a critical comparison of that corrected history can be made against the Bible's timeline. When that is done, for the most part, there is completely confirmation and compatibility between the two.

So the inerrantists are basically saying:

1) Resolve RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion at Rohov dated to 874-867BCE first.

2) Confirm that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were not the same king, any way you can, first.

3) Explain why the double-dating in the VAT4956 to 511BCE shouldn't be used to redate the year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, first.

4) Explain why the single eclipse in 763BCE dating the entire Assyrian period must do so by unconventionally beginning the year before the spring equinox, first.

Then, once you get all those things resolved, we'll be happy to compare your revised timeline. Otherwise, it's just one presumably revised historical record versus the other. Lots of people claim the Bible has been revised and the Biblicalists claim the pagans revised their history, etc. So it's FUN, but totally inconclusive.

Thanks!

Larsguy47