Larsguy47

Listen, everyone isn't meant to do well in the fast lane.

LG47

Larsguy47

I posted the chart for anybody to read, no blunder is possible.

To my knowledge, Ezra doesn't mention Darius the Mede. The Dariuses in the Ezra/Nehemiah are Darius I and Darius II only. You're confused about this topic.

I'll baby you through it if you are truly interested. Why would someone who knows so little have such a prejudicial view?

Anyway, here's the basics.

There is a mandatory 70-year period of exile for the last deportees, dated from the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar. That is 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem. Gedaliah was killed the year following the fall of Jerusalem and began to be mourned annually in a fast after that in the seventh month, the month he was killed.

DARIUS THE MEDE: Zechariah 1 and 7 count two periods of 70 years, one ending the 2nd of Darius and one ending the 4th of Darius but the Jews are still in exile. 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem end in year 2 and 70 years after the mourning for Gedaliah in the 7th month ends in year 4. However, the 70 years from year 23 was not to end for another 2 years. Based upon this, Darius the Mede is assigned 6 years of rule before Cyrus begins to rule over Babylon and release the Jews. The NB Period is 26 years longer in the Bible than in the survining Babylonian records which are presumed to be revised.

DARIUS I, THE GREAT: He rules for six years and dies at Marathon, the true reason Xerxes invades Greece to punish Athens. The Bible assigns him a six year rule. Secular revision adds 30 years to his rule.

DARIUS II: Darius II is mentioned once at Neh. 12:22. This proves Nehemiah lived down into the reign of Darius II.

Xerxes was born the same year Cyrus became king, lived 59 years and Nehemiah would have been around 30 years older. When the extra chronology is added to the Persian Period it forces Nehemiah to live far too long.


LG47

Larsguy47

Actually I didn't know what to expect. They tied me up and then forced me to watch this DVD exposing the lies of secular history and how the Bible's chronology is absolute and true, plus all the science and astronomy supporting it. And, here we are!

LG47

spin

Can you please supply all the precise background reasoning to these claims, so that one can see what you are talking about?


spin

spin

Total blunder.

Correct. It would have been hard for him, because it hadn't been invented.

As I only talked about Darius I and II in Ezra, it seems you've got it wrong again.

Why do you refuse to read the data?

Try to start with history, not babblings of a Jeremiah. You start from the facts, not from the opinions. What follows is only your efforts to fit history to your desires of those 70 years being correct.

When you want to start with the historical evidence already available, rather than inventing your own, let me know.


spin

Larsguy47

Sure.

Two scholars identified "errors" of about a day in Line 3 and 14. Abraham Sachs/Hermann Hunger noted an "error for the 8th" when the text indicated the lunar position for the 9th. And P.V. Neugebauer noted an error also of about a day in line 14.

Line 3 indicated the position of the moon on the 9th 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis, the Rear Foot of the Lion (GIR ar sa UR-A). But that is not the position of the moon for 568BCE. Thus an "error" was noted by Sachs/Hunger for the non-match. The moon travels about 3 cubits per night, 6 cubits per 24 hours. 30 days is 180 cubits. Each cubit is 2 degrees, so 180 cubits is 360 degrees, a full circle.

Line 14 is similar. It describes the moon 1 cubit "x" (above/below) NIM DIB (above right) of beta-Virginis, called the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A). But P.V. Neugebauer, an expert in ancient astronomy noted this too was an error of about a day.

Here's just some sample quotes for the context:


These "errors," even though generally thought to both be a day too early, were never compared. Then in just the last 10 years or so computers came into prominence and astronomy programs were made available to calculate ancient celestial events. Thus the VAT4956 was recharted for detail. In the process of doing that, the two errors were compared and discovered to match the same lunar cycle, matched to 511 BCE.

Therefore, it was presumed these were not really "errors" in the text but intentional references in order to hide the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, which must have been 511BCE.

When 511BCE was compared with the strict Biblical chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, it turned out to be the same. That is, Jesus' baptism in 29CE is 483 years after the 1st of Cyrus when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem." That dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. This, in turn, is 70 years after the last deportation date, the 23rd of Cyrus. In that case, we can date and fix the rule of Nebuchadnezzar per the Bible with year 23 falling in 525BCE. In that case, year 37 would fall in 511BCE.

So the combination of the double-dating in this text to both 568BCE and 511BCE, matched to the Bible's original chronology confirms the true date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. 568BCE is the revised, fake date. The Bible's chronology is thus true. The cryptic double-dating, though, now that it can be confirmed both references were intentional and datable to a relevant historical date of 511BCE in agreement with the Bible, thus effectively forces the true dating of the Neo-Babylonian Period.

That's the basic theoretical premise.

HOWEVER, after the fact of the redating, all the problems in the archaeology and RC14 scientific dating are then erased. Case in point the 455BCE dating for the 1st of Cyrus dates the Exodus to 1386BCE, which is 19 jubilees earlier. That in turn dates the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and his 39th year to 871BCE. That is, as you know, where the RC14 dating for the burning of Rehov has the highest "relative probability." So the RC14 dating from Rehov becomes a confirmation that this was the original chronology all along.


So everything is perfectly aligned from the NB Period, through the Assyrian Period and all the way back to the 18th Dynasty of Egypt.

The CHALLENGE is now getting rid of the extra Persian and Greek years by 358BCE. And that is easily done.

Darius I only ruled for 6 years per the Bible so there's no choice there. The Bible also links Xerxes and Artaxerxes together as the same king so the extra rule of 21 years for Xerxes is dimissed. Finally, the 47-year rule of Artaxerxes II is too long. It is reduced by 30 years as well. That basically takes care of 81 out of the 82 years!

LG47

xaxxat

Gee, and no one is beating a path to your door?

Weltall

That would require actually building a better mousetrap, not just asserting that the current best model is flawed.

Hex

Lars ...

Usually folks don't look to scholarship of history as 'the fast lane'. The only thing fast about this is your speed of jumping to new threads as you give up on others. :Cheeky:

Care to take up something that's well-known rather than pulling up well-buried rare stuff as your basis of a theory?

- Hex

Julian

I forgive you for your typo here. You clearly meant for that last comma to be a period and stop typing at that point. If you claim otherwise, I will find ways to show you why that simply isn't so. If I can be bothered, that is...

Julian