Posted by Gary #2 on March 22, 1999 at 15:16:41 {MW9hQZt3yw8IU}:
In Reply to: ANSTEY'S CHRONOLOGY DEAD posted by COJ on March 22, 1999 at 03:11:25:
To Carl,
Part 2 - continued..
>>ASTRONOMICAL TEXTS INTERLOCKED
WITH THE CONTRACT TABLETS
You rightly points out that the some 50,000
dated contracts from the Neo-Babylonian era
give us a RELATIVE chronology only.
That's right!
>>They
show the total length of reigns of the kings.
No they do not. Since the Neo-Babylonian era
was REDUCED, they do not "show" us the correct
reigns since some of the years are missing
which,
according to the conspiracy theory, this
documents were destroyed. So the documents are
an incomplete record.
>>Does this mean that you can simply take this
relative chronology and adapt it to your own
revised
chronology?
Your chronology is the REVISED chronology and
as we've stated, this relative documentation
fits with any chronology, both 607, 587 and
529BCE (fall of Jerusalem). That's what RELATIVE
chronology
means...
>>No, you cannot really, and this for at least two
important reasons:
Okay, (ho hum...yaaaaaaaawnnn...) let's hear it.
>>(1) In your revised chronology, the lengths
of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings disagree
with those established by the contract tablets.
They show, for example, that Awel-Marduk
ruled for 2 years and Nabonidus for 17 years.
They do not show this. The last 18 years from
the reign of Evil-Merodach are missing,
so
how do they "show" anything, except only
circumstantially? This doesn't work with the
conspiracy theory since it claims that the
chronology for this period was longer, so the
missing records proves the Persians tried
to
manipulate the business documents by gettig
rid of the records from the 3-20th year of
Evil-Merodach and 18 and 19 of Nabonidus.
>>You give 20 years to Awel-Marduk and 19
years to Nabonidus, the only reason being
that
this is required by your theory, while it
is in flagrant conflict with the contemporary
contract tablets.
It doesn't CONFLICT with the records. What
you have from the Neo-Babylonian period are
what is LEFT from the
manipulation of the records.
These records are noncontested. So as I said,
they work perfectly well with 607BCE chronology
or the 529BCE chronology. That is, we don't
dismiss them. We don't require you to ignore
them.
We're not claiming they are faked
documents, etc. So they don't bother me in
the least. They don't PROVE anything except
that there are a lot of missing business
documents.
(2) The calendar established by the contract
tablets fully agree with that reflected by the
astronomical texts and which you admit have
to be dated in the way established by the
scholars.
So, let's compare 568BCE with 511BCE! Does your
argument eliminate the
implied dates we have
established for 511BCE?
>>Thus you agree that, with one or
two exceptions, all the c. 30 observations
recorded on VAT 4956 belong to year 568
BC.
Specifically, what the Babylonians tried to
do,
since 568 and 511BCE fell on the same
dates in the solar calendar, is to intersperse
throughout the document lunar observations
which were similar throughout the year, throughout
the VAT4956 text. There is some missing
text,
of course, but I have identified probably about
4 distinct observations pretty much confirmed
to 511BCE. Remember this document is about
50% of the original document. We are only looking
at about 6 months. But
SYSTEMATICALLY, all the
observations for 511BCE are lunar observations
with specific cubit measurements, etc. The
568BCE obsevations are all planetary observations
as well as lunar observations except for those
belonging to
511BCE. So all the planetary
observations have been confirmed for 568BCE
which is critical; and some of the lunar
observations belong to 511BCE, the most
obvious being from Line 3 and Line 14.
Line 18 belongs to
568BCE.
>>And the same holds true of the more
than two dozens of lunar eclipses dated to
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
WRONG! You have to specify a reference here
Carl. You know the so-called "king's lists"
that match
up lunar eclipses for these reigns
originated from the Seleucid Period, which
means they are in the "FAKE DOCUMENT ROOM"
down the hall. So let's get back to reality,
we have to deal first with the VAT4956 before
graduating
to any other fake documents.
Those king's lists are as phony as a $3 bill!
And I'm not even going to consider them unless
you name them specifically.
>>Your claim,
for which there is no evidence whatsoever
...laugh.
There is plenty of evidence in the
VAT4956. This is a false statement.
>>(it is required only by your theory!),
Sorry, it is REQUIRED by the observations
themselves. The Bible. Line 3 and Line 14
of the VAT4956.... But by
all means, please
keep the hype going. This is entertaining...
>>that the
Seleucid scribes inserted the name of king
Nebuchadnezzar in these genuine astronomical
records, doesn�t really matter here, because these
astronomical records, too, reflect the very same,
irregular calendar as that brought out by the
contracts!
These "genuine" astronomical records are not
contemporary records, Carl. They were CREATED
during the Seleucid
period and that's when they
were REDATED. They are not genuine. We
are dealing with an "after-the-fact" document
which is AUTOMATICALLY PRESUMED TO BE FRAUDULENT
UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE. That means your
king's list with
all those fake eclipses and
the VAT4956, as I've stated 2,833,976 times...
(smile)...but who's counting?
>>The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1420,
AH! FAKE DOCUMENT ALERT!!!!
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!! ALARM! ALARM!!!
>>for example, which records about two dozens
of lunar eclipses from the first 29 years of
Nebuchadnezzar, shows the very same dates for
the 2nd Ululus and the 2nd Addarus as those
found on the contemporary contract
tablets!
Sorry, fake document from the Seleucid Period.
Automatic fraud!
>>>It shows that a 2nd Ululu had been inserted in
the 2nd and 5th years of Nebuchadnezzar, and
that a 2nd Addaru had been inserted in his 11th,
14th, and 26th years. Exactly the same positions
are given by the contract tablets.
Sorry, we are not concerned in the LEAST BIT
what this fake document from the SELEUCID PERIOD
has to say...
>>In this way
the
contract tablets are interlocked with the
astronomical records.
Sorry, invalid argument.
>>Even if the name of Nebuchadnezzar would
be removed from the astronomical texts, then,
the thousands of contemporary contracts
dated
the reign of this king lock his name to them
by showing that both groups of texts follow the
same identical irregular calendarial pattern.
May be, COJ. But as I also noted, this would
not affect 511 vs 568BCE
because they are in
the same 19-year lunisolar cycle. So the results
would be similar if not identical.
>>The "conspiracy" you imagine, therefore, is not
as simple as you have tried to argue. It is not
just a matter of
exchanging the names of the
rulers in the astronomical texts.
It is if you're doing it 3 centuries later!
It's just that simple. And particularly during
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar since the revised
dating and the original
dating fell during the
same lunisolar cycle; that is, the "natural"
cycle of the lunar year and solar year that
happens every 19 years.
>>And, of course, there is no evidence at
all in support of your "conspiracy" theory.
The VAT4956, line 3 says the "moon was 1 cubit
in front of the rear foot of the Lion" which
was Sigma-Leonis (Leo). That's where the Moon
was in 511BCE on that date. It was not there,
however, in 568BCE. Of course, you
TRY to make
it work by claiming there was a "scribal error"
and move it back one day, and SACHS/HUNGER
then fraudulently or incompetently claim that
the "rear foot of the Lion" is a star in Virgo,
and then you claim, "ah,
it's match!" Sorry,
that's not good enough.
And then there is Line 14, where the Moon is 1
cubit in front of Beta-Virginis. That where it
was on the 5th of Sivan in 511BCE. Another
match for 511BCE, not match for 568BCE,
however.
So based upon the creator's of the VAT4956
need to have some record of the original
chronology, they hid lunar references to 511BCE
in a document which propagandized the revised
chronology of 568BCE. Of course,
the significance
of observations in 511BCE, in the context of
"year 37" suggests the original year for the
37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II was in 511BCE.
When you date it thusly, then you get 529BCE
for the 19th year of
Nebuchadnezzar, and since
Josephus' history claims that the 70-year
"desert period" didn't begin until those in
Egypt were exiled in the 23rd year of
Nebuchadnezzar, we're forced by historical
reference to insert 70 years
beginning with
the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar in 525BCE
which means the 1st year of Cyrus falls in
455BCE.
So I wish you'd stop saying "there is absolutely
no evidence." There is evidence, if even
controversial.
Josephus' statement alone about
the 70-year desert period contradicts the
587BCE theory directly. You have to dimiss him
to keep your chronology. But it still is
something you have to consider. It is still
considered
"evidence" of the conspiracy, and
"evidence" of the extended Babylonian period.
Jewish records have the same weight as any other
ancient records until proven otherwise.
>>The only "evidences" you have presented
thus far are
that your theory "requires" this.
All I can say now is that I have a 529BCE
THEORY based upon two ancient texts called
the VAT4956 and the SK400, whether or not
that theory is misguided or not. I don't need
to reference the
Bible or Josephus to get the
ABSOLUTE DATE OF 529BCE now. I can get it
DIRECTLY (if even inappropriately and wrongly)
from the two most critical and important
astronomical texts there are that date this
period, which is
the VAT4956 and the SK400!
So I'm not in the least bit worried.
>>This is just an arguing in a circle.
Yes, but I love to argue with you Carl.
>>As long
as you cannot present any proof which shows
that the Seleucid scribes
used to change the
names of the kings in the texts they were
copying, it is a meaningless theory, and it is
useless to discuss it.
Here is where you have it wrong.
When you have a "COPIED" DOCUMENT, from a
later
period of time, in the absence of any
corroborating documentation, then you
automatically presume there was a conspiracy
to revise that part of history.
Thus, as noted, there are consistent records
from the Assyrian period
and the Neo-Babylonian
period up until about the time of the middle
of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, and then
things suddenly dry up! No contemporary
astronomical texts, nothing. (i.e. The Nabon
18 is a narrative text
with astronomical
reference). And then you have this over efflux
of revised documents, purely preoccupied with
the Neo-Babylonian period, trying to establish
the revised king's list along connected
events, such as the
18-year eclipse cycle.
How obvious can you get. You automatically know
they faked their records and are trying to make
up for the gaps by providing a "consecutive"
record.
In the meantime, if you do a little more
research
the conspiracy is quite apparent because of the
"loose ends" that these revisions have caused.
One glaring error is Cyrus' birthdate happening
15 years before that of his own mother. That
should tell you right
there that there is at
least a 40-60 year chronological revision post
Herodotus.
Then it becomes quite another issue when you
critically examine astronomical texts such as
the VAT4956 wherein the "spurious"
references
that don't match with 568BCE are all consistent
with 511BCE, the implication being that year
37 of Nebuchadnezzar was in 511BCE. Bit surprise
that agrees with other chronology which also
dates the fall of
Jerusalem in 529BCE.
You can't get around it, Carl. There are too
many contradictions. Too much based upon
documents from the wrong period which we can't
confirm whether they are authentic or not,
and when we do find one
authentic document,
such as the Nabon 18, which dates an eclipse
in the 2nd year of Nabonidus in the 7th month,
lo and behold, it's no problem for the 529BCE
chronology since in 479BCE, the true 2nd year
of Nabonidus there
was an eclipse that month;
only the eclipse in 479BCE was a TOTAL ECLIPSE
and not a partial one. AND...it is corrected
to the Honolulu relocation required by all
the observations in the VAT4956.
That alone proves the 554BCE
eclipse didn't
occur in Babylon and it's totally bogus.
So I guess you're going to continue to live in
your fantasy world. You have to if you don't
think there is any evidence to support the
conspiracy. But I suppose that
is how you
maintain belief in the 587BCE chronology by
just going into total DENIAL.
Whatever works....
Continued - Part 3