Posted by Quantasi [GLamotta] on March 27, 1999 at 21:52:25 {boLUiPtahcf6PtSXCAA2MW2MRXA6xmpsc}:
This is just a quick "repetition for emphasis"
of the SK400 and VAT4956 references to the
original chronology which correctly dates the
fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE.
SK400:
The SK400 mentions two eclipses, one on Tammuz
14
and one on Tebet 14. The first one is 3:20
before night and the second is 5 hours before
morning. We have confirmination by a Ptolemy
reference to the Tammuz eclipse that it occurred
"one hour before Midnight" which means we
have
a good reference for how long the "offset" for
night and moring were. It had always been
thought to have been around 30 minutes, 28 minutes
or 32 minutes. We now know it was 32 minutes.
Here's how it works.
Tammuz
and Tebet are 6 months apart. Sunset in
Tammuz was 7:09 and sunrise in Tebet was 7:19
giving us a total of 12:10 minutes to work with
to determine the ECLIPSE INTERVAL which identifies
the correct year for the two eclipses.
The years
in question are "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar in
541BCE wherein the interval was 2:45 and 523BCE
for the "7th year of Kambyses" wherein the
interval between the eclipses was 4:46. Of course,
when you add 3:20 and
5:00 you get 8:20 which when
subtracted from 12:10 gives you a maximum interval before offset of 3:50 which is less than 4:46 for 523BCE making the 523BCE eclipses an impossible match based upon the text description. ON the other
hand...
The Tammuz eclipse should have occurred at around 11:00 p.m. (one hour before Midnight). Adding 3:20 to 7:09 gives us 10:29 which is 31 minutes short of 11:00 p.m.
Thus we empirically time the offset for evening and morning
at 32 minutes. Here's how 541 BCE with an eclipse interval of 2:45 works out.
We have one eclipse at 3:20, one eclipse at 5:00 which gives us 8:20. Plus two 32-minute offsets gives us 64 minutes or 1:04. 1:04+8:20=9:24. We subtract this from 12:10 to get the net eclipse interval which is 2:46. (12:10=11:70-9:24=2:46) Of course, the 541BCE interval is 2:45, thus considered a perfect match and intended reference for "year 7" for 541BCE. If we date the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 541BCE, we get his first year in 547BCE and his 19th year in 529BCE.
VAT4956:
This is less complex and very direct. Line 3 of the VAT4956 says the "moon was 1 cubit in front of Sigma-Leonis" on the 9th of Nisan.
The two dates we're looking at are the revised date of 568BCE for year 37th of Nebuchadnezzar per current chronology, and 511BCE which would be the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in order to date his 19th year in 529BCE. Of course, on this
date in 568BCE, the moon was no where near Sigma-Leonis, but it was precisely there in 511BCE. Now let's just say this is an incredible coincidence. We need some confirmation.
Well, then we go to Line 14 which says the Moon, on the 5th of Sivan was the equivalent of 1 cubit in front of Beta-Virginis. It wasn't there in 568BCE, but it was there in 511BCE. Thus you have coordinated references to a specific year for the Moon, which matches 511BCE.
What is the significance of 511BCE in the context of "year 37" for Nebuchadnezzar? Good question. Well if this text is implying that 511BCE was really Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar then guess what? His 1st year would again fall in 547BCE and his 19th year in 529BCE.
So we now have two, independent text references which both DIRECTLY DATE the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 529BCE, perfectly consistent with the Bible's chronology which requires the 1st year of Cyrus to fall in 455BCE to fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy.
Now keep in mind that tens of thousands of business tablets and lots of narrative texts will not give you any absolute dates. Only astronomical texts can do that. Thus these are DIRECT DATES. They can't be manipulated or changed. They are absolute dates confirmed by astronomical match-up.
So what we have in these two texts is quite simple. With all the revisionism going on during the Seleucid Period, apparently the astronomer-priests decided to leave some record behind of the original chronology in a type of complex astronomical text we call a "diary" which is what the SK400 and the VAT4956 are. Thus both texts carry references to the revised chronology as well as the original chronology. This not only proves the conspiracy to manipulate the astronomical record, but also gives us the direct dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.
As the Bible indicates, based upon the Messiah's appearance in 29CE after 483 years, we must date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. When we count a 70-year desert period to the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II which was the last deportation in 525BCE, we must date the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of Jerusalem in 529BCE.
That was simply the original chronology. So the references in these two texts to the original chronology in this encrypted fashion, is quite understandable. Of course, both texts confirm that 529BCE was actually the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and nothing we have will preempt this. Not fake business tablets and especially not the reliefs at Persepolis which only supports about 2 years of building by Darius at Persepolis during the beginning of his reign, confirming the Bible's record that Darius I actually died in his sixth year.
Thus for those who believed the Bible, including Anstey who long ago dismissed the secular chronology and its fake evidence as unreliable, there is now a direct confirmation in two critical astronomical texts which now DIRECTLY DATE the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE, confirming the 455BCE Biblical dating as absolutely correct.
What does this mean? This means that anyone who still thinks or believes that the fall of Jerusalem occurred in 587BCE are not simply opinated, they are out of date and wrong. Astronomers and chronologists not recognizing the 82-year expansion of the Persian Period are now considered INCOMPETENT.
It's as simple as that.
Quantasi