# ***The Gentile Times Ended??

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 17, 1999 at 21:39:47 {xx2d.1sWpQf9UnUPxURUslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: **The Gentile Times Ended?? posted by Leastofthese on November 17, 1999 at 18:33:25:

So Bibleman, How will you reconcile the seventy weeks of the Jews captivity in Babylon with your date, without discrediting the prophecy of the seventy weeks of desolation?

EASY.

First of all, you must know a little bit more about Neo-Babylonian archaeological findings and the first thing you need to ask is whether the documents used to get the 539BCE dating for the fall of Babylon are CONTEMPORARY or "copies." You will quickly find that 99% of them are all copies and that's because they are all revised documents.

Therefore, there is no need to "resolve" the discrepancy since there is no need to coordinate any archaeological dates prior to 359BCE which is when the revised and non-revised history gets back on track.

Thus this is now simply a COMPETITION of the records at this point. Biblical versus archaeological versus Greek and Persian secular historians.

The 529BCE chronology, therefore, is consistent with the chronology of Dr. Martin Anstey who was around in the early 1900's who simply felt that the "70 weeks" prophecy of Daniel had to be fulfilled by Cyrus in [455 BCE] and since that didn't agree with secular chronology, he simply dismissed it as incompetent. So the 529BCE should be taken as a completely independent chronology than the popular 539BCE dating based upon scripture. And that simply works like this:

The "70 weeks" prophecy requires the Messiah to show up at the beginning of the 70th week after 483 years. That date was 29CE and therefore the 70 weeks must begin in 455BCE (483-29=454+1=455). Since the "going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem" took place when Jerusalem first began to be reuilt in the 1st of Cyrus, we simply date the 1st of Cyrus that year.

Then we used Josephus' reference in his "Antiquities" (Book X, chap ix, 7) which references that the last deportation of the Jews in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 52:30) was that of the Jews who had fled down to Egypt, followed by a 70-year period of "desert" and desolation for Jerusalem. That is where we get the 74-year period from the return to the fall of Jerusalem. That is, if the Jews returned in 455BCE, then the 70-year desolation period began in 525BCE which was the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II. That means Jerusalem fell 4 years earlier in 529BCE.

And that's the simple "Biblical" chronology.

DEBATE: Now, it used to be this could be debated and lots of information set forth to overturn this chronology. But actually it boils down to the fact that ALL of the data is relative data except for astronomical texts. And thus the texts emphasized for anchoring this dating to the 539BCE dating were two critical astronomical texts called the "SK400" dated to the 7th of Kambyses in 523BCE, and the very important "VAT4956" which has several astronomical references for "Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II" in 568BCE. All critical dating, therefore, hinges on these two texts because the astronomy in them are to specific years we can calculate scientifically through astronomy.

That was, up until the age of computers! Since astronomy is such a mathematical and precise science, astronomical programs eventually were developed that can chart the ancient skies. You can punch in a date and you can actually see the state of the ancient skies. So this was a new edge to the field.

As a result these two documents were eventually completely recharted using modern astronomical programs and, indeed, the observations were remarkably precisely as stated in the texts! It's amazing that the programs are that precise. But, there did develop one little, tiny, itzy-bitzy problem. And that is, in both texts were found double-dating to another year.

The VAT4956 had double dating to 511BCE and the SK400 had double dating to 541BCE. Of course, this only meant one thing and that is the current dating had been fabricated and that the correct dating was preserved in these two texts. So as far as research goes, we were forced to accept the original dating for Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II must have been 511BCE and the original Year 7 for Nebuchadnezzar II was 541BCE. Of course, both those dates give you the same dates for the original reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

511+47=548-19=529BCE.

541+7=548-19=529BCE.

So based upon these two astronomical texts, which dismiss the 537BCE chronology, we are forced to date the true fall of Babylon in 529BCE whether we want to or not. That's the latest critical data.
And there is nothing that can overturn it since only astronomical texts can provide what we call "absolute-dating". A million contract tablets won't change a thing, they'll just revert to whatever dating is in the absolute astrotexts.

So that's the situation now, we have astronomically based absolute-dating in texts that once were used to support the 539BCE dating now dismissing that dating as fraudulent while at the same time providing the original dating, and that dating is perfectly consistent with the dating already arrived at by Dr. Anstey who with great vision suspected the current popular chronology must be wrong.

So now the shoe is on the other foot. It's the 539BCE dating which has to now be verified; which it can't be since it's foundation has been removed and all the documents used for this chronology were copied, non-contemporary documents anyway. Which of course, they are, since this chronology is fake and REVISED.

So the critical ADVANCED date, based upon the latest astronomical information dates the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE and at the same time proves the 587BCE and thus the 607BCE dating is inaccurate.

Now the problem witnesses have is that they started out trusting the 539BCE dating which everybody basically agreed upon with few exceptions. So that chronology was not based upon the Bible as the primary source as was Anstey's. Had they trusted the Bible more and secular chronology less, then they would have had the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE or close to it.

So in CONCLUSION, this 529BCE dating is based upon the Martin Anstey chronology which existed in the early 1900s which challenges the current chronology and since then his chronology has been verified by the most reliable and up-to-date means which is astronomical text dating which now substantites the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE.

So now, essentially, Biblicalists who accept 529BCE as the correct date no longer have to argue about it over archaeological records or anything.
All they have to do is point to the double-dating in these two texts and see what explanations the historians and archaeologists have to say about it. Which there is nothing to say.

And may I hasten to remind you, the current chronology dates the birth of Cyrus in 600BCE when his mother allegedly wasn't even conceived until after 585BCE. So if you're going to start to defend that chronology, start with that and these astronomical texts. Which you will soon see there is no defense and thus the 529BCE dating is the correct one, Biblically as well as scientifically now.

Cheers,
Bibleman

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ****The Gentile Times Ended??

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]