Posted by Gary [GLamotta] on March 29, 1999 at 07:46:54 {boLUiPtahca3ya784pdUMW4MSSTtTA17s}:
In Reply to: *ANSTEY'S CHRONOLOGY DEAD # 2 posted by Sincere on March 29, 1999 at 05:28:28:
1. Per the current chronology, Cyrus was born 15 years before his own mother. Herodotus finished his history near the beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
2. VAT4956, Line 3, says the moon was "1 cubit in front of the rear foot of the Lion (Sigma-Leonis)." It wasn't in that location in 568BCE. It was in that location in 511BCE.
3. VAT4956, Line 14, says the moon was NIM-DIB (in front of) the "bright star at the end of the Lion's foot" (Beta-Virginis) on Sivan 5. It was no where near there in 568BCE. But it was precisely there in 511BCE.
The suggestion is, if there really was a conspiracy and the Seleucids determined to change all the astronomical records, that the astronomer priests may have wanted to preserve some references to the original chronology and so they invented documents like the VAT4956 and the SK400 which allowed them to insert similar observations from the revised chronology and the original chronology. So these two documents were like their secret references to the original dating.
Of course, if that's the case, and this is purely THEORETICAL!..... if that's the case, then the implication is that 511BCE was the original 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, in which case his 19th year and the fall of Jerusalem would be in 529BCE.
Now the only significance to that dating is that, per the Bible, that's also the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.
So that's the connection.
Thus, now those who had already accepted the 455BCE chronology as being accurate and the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE as correct, regardless of what the clay tablets or astronomical texts claim, now have a DIRECT REFERENCE IN ANCIENT RECORDS to the 529BCE dating.
That's all this is about. The debate is still going to go on no matter what. It's just that the 529BCE dating can now be derived from some interpretation of two critical astronmical texts. Therefore, technically, you don't need the Biblical or historical references now, you can get absolute dating from astronomical texts.
But that doesn't mean this is not going to be contested or challenged. All it means is that it's a lot harder to overturn the 529BCE chronology since you have two direct references to this dating during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and what is worse is that the references are in the same documents used to date the 568BCE chronology.
So the fact that we see Carl doing a lot of fast talking and handwaving here just attests to the new challenge this discovery presents to the 568BCE chronology. After all, he does consider the VAT4956 as the "most important" historical document of all.
So look at it this way. Those references in the VAT4956 could be simple "scribal errors" and "What a COINCIDENCE!" they happen to perfectly match-up with 511BCE. Even if this is a fluke, it's still bad news for the 568BCE debate team.
But look at it from my standpoint. It's very hard to see 2 references in the VAT4956 and two in the SK400 which directly date the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 529BCE, when that had always been the presumed "Biblical" dating.
It's very hard not to accept what seems "obvious" which is that these documents were special documents that left a record of the original chronology for the astronomer priests. There can't be any other explanation for these match-ups. In other words, if this was the original chronology and all the other records were being changed, it makes sense that they would have wanted to preserve some record of the original chronology, if even for their own reference. So this type of game with the astronomical observations served that purpose. But since we had already established this chronology by other means, we just happened to have caught them red handed, that's all.
That's all they did. They just said: "Hey! Let's make up a document for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and sneak in some 511BCE references. Nobody will notice, or if they do they will think it's a mistake. And then at least we'll have some references to prove what the original chronology was!" Astronomer #2: "Okay, great idea!"
Thus you have two tablets with references to both chronologies, 511 and 568 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and 541 and 523 for the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar/Kambyses. It's as simple as that.
That's why those references that don't fit 568 and 523BCE are there fitting 511 and 541...simply because they did change this chronology, there was a conspiracy, but they did leave references to the original chronology, which based
upon the texts, so happen to both date the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 529BCE. Big surprise it works out so great for the "70 weeks" prophecy!
Bottom Line? The Jews kept great records....the Greeks were big liars.
Now is that a big surprise? Hardly! The Babylonians, Persians and Greeks changed their history all the time and that's why it is such an incredible mess...you know...Cyrus born 15 years before his own mother, etc. type of mess?
Anyway, I'm ahead of the game at this point and it is nice to see Carl squirming so vigorously to try to topple what he can't.
Cheers,
Gary