Reply: Hector Carde Fri05/04/2002
Posted by: Biblical Research Society
IP Address: 172.148.134.179
Date posted: Tue02/04/2002
Time posted: 21:09:00PM
Email: [email protected]Note: If you are one of Jehovah's witnesses receiving this via E-mail, please simply forward this to WTS Headquarters or provide it to one of the elders to do so. This information is for elders, overseers and the Governing Body, specifically. (See special instructions below at the end of this information for current JWs). Thank-you. NO REPLY NECESSARY!!!
======================
VAT STATS FOR WTS AND OTHERS...
The Watchtower Society needs to know that their 1914 dating is no longer a credible date by either the Bible or by secular means, the key secular reference being the double-dating in the VAT4956 astronomical text which gives us the correct Biblical dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. But it is a somewhat technical "adjusted" reading, so you need the critical details regarding the history of the text to correctly extract the hidden dating. Following will be the information provided to the WTS and other agencies to assist them in understanding the text correctly.
A UNIQUE TEXT: First of all, the VAT4956 has to be treated uniquely in its reading since it apparently was created before an aggressive revision in later texts that distorted the ERP (earth's rotational position) by 12 to 16 hours including the renaming of at least one critical star, that of sigma-Leonis for beta-Virginis. These stars are 3 cubits apart representing about 12-14 hours of lunar distance. The ancient zodiac refers to sigma-Leonis originally as the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) and beta-Virginis as the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL UR-A). Most of the later Seleucid Period astrotexts besides the 12-16 hour distortion in rename beta-Virginis specifically as the "Rear Foot of the Lion" which would automatically by simple substitution delay the ERP by 12-14 hours. However, this distortion must have occurred after the creation of the VAT4956 since the VAT4956 uses the original references and ERP. Thus this text must be read with adjusted times from later texts, including even the critical "SK400" (Strm. Kambyses 400) which the Watchtower Society uses to establish an astronomical basis in dating the 7th year of Kambyses in 523 B.C.E.
SELF-DEFINED TIMING: Fortunately, though the VAT4956 is just half a tablet, giving us only six months out of 12 for the year (the first 3 and last 3 months) there are enough references to demonstrate the earlier timing and references as follows. These are found critically in Lines 8 and 18.
LINE 8: Line 8 provides both the lunar position and the solar position during a specific day, the first day of the 2nd month for 568 B.C.E. The reference indicates the Moon was 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum at the time when the sun was setting, thus this lunar position and sunset have to be coordinated. When done so, it shows up an approximate 13.5-hour discrepancy for the lunar position when observed from Babylon as represented in the astronomical programs which show the Moon just over 1 cubit below beta-Geminorum. Thus for accurate observations for the VAT4956, one must make this 13.5 hour adjustment for this text only since the astronomical programs are timed based upon the later revised documents.
LINE 18: Furthermore, the reference to the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" (BSBLF) is a specific reference in this particular text to beta-Virginis since the text refers to a planet that is directly beneath this star around the 15th of Sivan, 568 B.C.E. This is planet is clearly Venus. Interestingly enough, however, Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger who translated this text originally inserted the "moon" in their translation of the text which is a blatant misrepresentation, especially since the Moon had passed through Virgo some 10 days earlier. There is some question whether this is a deliberate misreprensation since it requires both not realizing the Moon's specific position on the 15th, a fundamental observation, as well as not realizing Venus was the plantary reference for Line 18. Of course, as noted, this reference proves that for the VAT4956 the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" is a reference for beta-Virginis in this particular text and the "Rear Foot of the Lion" a reference to the star immediately in front of it which would be signa-Leonis, the original rear foot of Leo.
The combined references in Line 18 and 8, therefore, prove the VAT4956 was created before later astronomical texts misrepresented actual lunar location and times in an effort to cover up the revisionism for the Neo-Babo-Persian Period which adds between 54 to 82 years of distorted chronology, which is one of the reasons the Bible and the secular dating for this period do not match up well.
THE DOUBLE-DATING: Now, once the above adjustments are made for this specific text, two other mis-matched references to 568 BCE found in the text, which are Lines 3 and 14 can easily be dated to 511 BCE which was the original 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. This adjustment can be easily made for the standard astronomical programs by simply adjusting the observational point some 13.5 hours earlier from the longitude of Babylon to the longitude of Honolulu which represents this distance. Once this is done, then the reference in Line 3 to the Moon being 1 cubit in front of the "Rear Foot of the Lion" which is a VAT4956 reference to sigma-Leonis, and Line 14 which refers to the Moon being 1 cubit above-below the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot", a reference to beta-Virginis, both critically match the lunar positions in 511 BCE but do not match up with those positions in 568 BCE.
Since lunar positions are extremely specific and it is not likely some copyist merely guessed these coordinated positions belonging to another year, the obvious presumption is that these were intentional cryptic references to the original chronology which now gives us a direct text reference to the original dating for year 37 occurring in 511 BCE and the confirmed revised dating being in 568 BCE, proving this dating was revised.
COORDINATING THE VAT4956, JOSEPHUS AND THE BIBLE: But of course, what really confirms this must be the correct conclusion regarding this text, is it's coordination with other chronology, including the Bible, which independently reflect the identical dating for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE.
That simple calculation is based upon the "70 weeks" prophecy which indicates the Messiah would appear after 69 weeks from the time when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem." That word went forth in the 1st of Cyrus when both the city and the temple began to be rebuilt in the 7th month. Since the Messiah appeard in 29 CE, we correctly date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE, some 483 years (69 weeks) earlier. We then follow closely the Biblical chronology and Josephus regarding a period of 70 years of desolation which both the Bible and Josephus indicate did not begin until the last deportation occurred in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar (Ant. 11.1.1). This is a critical detail missed by many scholars discussing this period; the WTS, in particular, who date the 70 years beginning in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, for instance. However, dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE following 70 years of desolation dates the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar in 525 BCE. That dating, of course, is consistent with his 37th year falling specifically in 511 BCE, the same specific dating suggested by the double-dating in the VAT4956 in Lines 3 and 14 once you made the necessary technical adjustments and get past the misrepresentations of the original translators.
Please note, specifically, therefore, that in the original translation Sachs/Hunger do not translate Line 3 as the "Rear Foot of the Lion" but substitute their reference to "beta-Virginis" for that line, which is incorrect, this reference being to "sigma-Leonis". However, for Lines 14 and 18, which would have been references to the second star in Virgo, eta-Virginis, they do not name that star but translate the original text as the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" which then most persons additionally presume is a reference to beta-Virginis. Thus you cannot determine directly from their translation that there is a critical difference between the star reference in Line 3 ("Rear Foot of the Lion") versus the star reference in Lines 14 and 18 (the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot"); and that is in addition to distracting the casual reader from noting that Venus was indeed beneath beta-Virginis on the 15th as referenced in Line 18 by indicating the "Moon" was in that position, which of course is absolutely wrong. As far as I know, this is yet to be formally corrected by them, though acknowledged to be incorrect by anyone actually checking this reference, including the British Museum who excuses the misrepresentation without correction as "Those who do not write books, make no errors". So this is just a little warning that you have to be a bit aggressive to get down to the critical facts represented in the text itself, which is why this additional information will be provided to the WTS for the reexamination of this text:
WTS DATING CONTEXT: Finally, to put a little context for the WTS for this dating, who might also be first very reluctant to take this seriously at first since they are so totally fixated on their 1914 dating, is to first point out that Josephus and the Bible do not begin the 70 years until the date of the last deportation of the Jews in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar. For their reference, both the Bible and Josephus confirm that those last deported were the remaining ones who survived of those who ran down to Egypt. These reamining ones "left over from the sword" are the ones last deported, and they were deported from Jerusalem, or at least Judea as Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 indicates that those remaining from the sword would, indeed, return to Judah though few in number. This thus totally contradicts the current claim by the WTS both Biblically and via Josephus (whom they use to support the 70-year desolation) that this 70 years began the same year Jerusalem was destroyed.
Furthermore, if you examine Zechariah 1 and 7 you'll discover that the mourning for Gedaliah in the 7th month dated to the 4th of Darius is 2 years after 70 years expires from the destruction of Jeruslaem which is dated to the 2nd of Darius. Since it takes about 5 months for news to travel from Jerusalem to Babylon, it can presumed that Gedaliah would have been fasted for the year following his death in the 7th month, thus implying that Gedaliah did not die 2 months after the fall of Jerusalem but a year and 2 months later, that is, in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar rather than his 19th year. This is substantiated contextually as well since Gedaliah had to have time to send word out to the scattered Jews who are said to have "gradually" returned to Jerusalem in order to harvest the "summer fruits" crops there, including "wine" which is one of the earlier crops. All this is consistent with his dying the following year.
Considering all that, the dating of the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE, some 70 years from the revised false date of 537BCE would be technically wrong on any basis since it is dated to the wrong event, being off by some 4-5 years when dated as beginning in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar rather than his 23rd year as indicated by both the BIBLE and JOSEPHUS! So 607 BCE is an intolerable date completely under any circumstances for those who are critically informed Biblically and historically, and thus 1914 is not correct under any circumstanes either. So hopefully, after understanding there is no Biblical connection between the fall of Jerusalem and 1914, the true chronology for this period can be seriously considered. In other words, no 1914-based arguments need even be introduced to distract from the critical reexamination of this text which now supports the true Biblical chronology.
70-weeks prophecy corrected: Furthermore, as noted above, there should be no problem with assigning the fulfillment of the 70-weeks prophecy to Cyrus when the word to rebuild Jerusalem first went forward. Key points would be the fact that the Bible specifically says Cyrus would be involving in rebuilding both "Jerusalem" and the "temple". The current casual reference to applying this prophecy to Nehemiah's rebuilding of the walls and skipping past Cyrus is the idea that only temple was rebuilt but the "city" remained unrebuilt until Nehemiah came along and threw up a wall around Jerusalem in just 52 days. Of course, he didn't since they could not build a double wall around Jerusalem in just 52 days; the new wall was already there and, in fact, completed even before the temple was just 16 years after the Jews returned. (Nehmiah 11:4). Of course, even Nehemiah indicates there were other structures present associated with the wall or present in the city including a "castle" and many "homes" which were located on top of the wall itself. Of note, even in his description of the repair work done on the wall, many sections were repaired "in front of the home" of those doing the repair work, indicating simply the section of wall located beneath their homes which were located on top of the wall. In addition, Ezra 9 indicates both the "stone wall" and the "house" (temple) were present when he came along in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, something the WTS dismisses as an indirect colorful reference to the stone wall being God's "invisible protection" of the Jews at this time and not the stone wall itself.
Thus, on honest and closer examination, it should be more than clear that Nehemiah does not critically fulfill this "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" long after the fact some 82 years later compared to Cyrus fulfilling this word. Furthermore, it was Daniel who was told to begin this count of 484 years (69 weeks) and Daniel was still alive in the 1st of Cyrus to witness the beginning of this rebuilding, already being over 100 years of age at the time. He certainly would not have been alive to witness the fulfillment of this prophecy some alleged 82 years later in the 20th of Artaxerxes.
CRITICAL REDUCTION OF PERSIAN PERIOD: Just as a preemptive note with reference to the reduction of the Persian Period. This is easily done Biblically since Ezra 6:14, 15 indicate that "Artaxerxes" was the last king to work on the temple but it was completed "in the sixth of Darius", indicating that Darius died in his sixth year (vs his 36th) and that this was the "accession year" of Artaxerxes. History tells us that Xerxes followed Darius I on the throne with his well-known invasion of Greece. However, the Bible also references this invasion, stating that the 4th king after Cyrus would indeed invade Greece. The 4th king would be Darius' successor (i.e. Kambyses, Bardiya, Darius I...). Thus part of the expansion of the Persian Period has to do with the claim that Xerxes and Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) were two different kings (father and son) rather than being the same king, which they were. When the extraneous 21 years of reign of Xerxes are absorbed by Artaxerxes, however, and we reduce the 36-year rule of Darius I down to the Biblically correct 6 years, already you have reduced the expanded 82 years by 51 years, leaving only 31 years to reduce based upon secular records. This is easily done by reducing the 47-year rule of Artaxerxes II down by 30 years to 17 years, and a co-rulership year by Kambyses with his father Cyrus by 1 year which now accounts for the entire 82 years of expanded chronology.
Now, of course, I know all this sounds involved, but then again the Bible gives us no choice regarding some of this chronology since it only allows for a 6-year rule by Darius I based upon Ezra 6:14,15. So it's a choice to accept what the Bible says or ancient revised chronology, chronology which was revised for political reasons, by the way; Xerxes claimed to be Artaxerxes after his invasion of Greece to avoid a retaliative strike by the Athenians. The false rumor that he died violently at the hands of his own son cooled things down a bit. Of course, the subsequent revisions in the chronology were gradually adjusted to reflect this discrepancy; but that's another research paper.
What is important here is that there is a critical astronomical text now used by secular historians to substantiate the dating of the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE which can now be turned around completely to redate that year to the Biblically correct date of 511 BCE which completely harmonizes with the 70-weeks prophecy being fulfilled by Cyrus and the original beginning of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 455 BCE.
Obviously, once this text is critically examined and the references checked by credible researchers there will be no question that the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar must be redated to 511 BCE and thus all the fake dates based upon the revised chronology, including the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE or 587BCE will also become defunct. This is inevitable, it's simply a matter of time.
SK400 DOUBLE-DATING: Finally, of course, even the SK400 which is also designed to double-date a reference to the original chronology, that of "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar to 541BCE is the second document supporting the fact that this chronology was revised but that some of the astronomers cleverly found ways to insert double-dating into these texts to preserve cryptic references to the original chronology. The two eclipses mentioned in this text include specific times of the night they occurred which implies a specific timed INTERVAL between the eclipses which do not match 523 BCE. That is, the interval based upon the text is only 2:46 minutes, which reflects the interval 18 years earlier in 541BCE which works out to be "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar based upon the corrected Biblical chronology. But that's another paper as well.
Please note, however, that others, such as Martin Anstey and those following his work like Wayne Mauro have already scrapped the revised secular chronology in favor of the clearly Biblical reference to Cyrus fulfilling the 70-weeks prophecy and thus have already arrived at dating Cyrus' 1st year around 455BCE, so this is not a new theory. It's only that the recent secular research into the astronomical texts have now confirmed this appropriate conclusion, that is, that the astronomical texts and other history from this period include revisions and thus contradict the Biblle's accurate chronology for this period, specifically, a longer Neo-Babylonian period that would afford for a 74-year interval from the fall of Jerusalem in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar until the 1st of Cyrus (529-455 BCE).
Furthermore, certain Jewish academic circles have also inherited the original Jewish secular chronology for this period and have long known that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. Thus their own secretitive time tables reflect this same chronology, including a "Talmudic timeline" that easily converts the critical events related to the temple to the correct dating. Case in point the building of the first temple dated in 832 BCE , the critical 4-year apart dates for the destruction of the temple and the beginning of the 70-year exile in 426 and 422 BCE, and the completion of the temple in the 6th of Darius in 352 BCE. The original chronology for the completion of the temple in 434BCE is 82 years later than the revised dating in 516 BCE for the 6th of Darius. The Jewish Talmudic Timeline gives the cryptic date of 352 BCE which is exactly 82 years later than 434BCE. A coincidence? Not likely. Of course, no one, even the Jews, believe that the 6th of Darius I fell in 352 BCE, it's a cryptic reference. Other dates are easily extracted as well by applying implied intervals between the major events. Thus if you add 21 years to 434BCE you get the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. If you add 21 to 82 you get 103. This interval of 103 added to 426 and 422, the critical dates for the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the 70-year desolation become 529 and 525 BCE (103+426=529, 103+422=525 BCE), the original dates. The critical 74-year interval from the fall of Jerusalem to the beginning of the rebuilding in the 1st of Cyrus can be applied to the original temple dating of 832 which gives the corrected date of 906 BCE. So, in fact, this original chronology was not LOST but certainly suppressed and distorted throughout the centuries, but fortunately, on critical reexamination of all the records, both the conspiracy and the original dating comes through consistently to support the Bible's accurate chronology for this period, which is the critical point here, vindicating the Judeo-Biblical chronology and demonstrating via secular records that this is the original true chronology.
In the meantime, anointed ones who have proven to be "wise virgins" by examining closely this additional research can no longer tolerate the incorrect application of the 70-weeks prophecy or the inaccurate dating of the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE which is based on the revised inaccurate secular chronology dating from the Seleucid Period, notably the "pivotal date" of the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE by the witnesses; this date is part of the entire revised chronology for this period and thus now must be corrected based upon the new current research.
The above notification will be widely distributed among scholars and studious witnesses interested in the truth and 607 BCE will fall along with 587BCE (for the fall of Jerusalem) based upon the facts. This should thus be a critical wake-up call for all those interested in worshipping Jehovah in "spirit and TRUTH" in these critical times. Let us not be found "sleeping" either spiritually or academically in this critical time of judgment just before the millennium.
May God bless all who seek truth.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: For any witnesses receiving this notification by E-mail, you are requested to please forward this information to the WTS Headquarters and not discuss this with other witnesses which might cause confusion until the WTS itself is able to assess this information and make an official announcement. Or if you're not an elder, simply pass this information to your presiding overseer so that they may forward this information to the Society so they can deal with it directly. There is little that can be done within the organization until these changes come out in the Watchtower officially and how to deal with it. Please note, for instance, that 1914 is still a good date for beginning our "last generation"; that will not change. The signs in the Bible confirm this. It simply is not the "end of the gentile times" based upon the "7 times" prophecy which has been incorrectly dated to an incompetent date of 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem.
Thank-you, so much, for your cooperation. There is no need to answer this E-mail unless you have a specific research question, however, I cannot promise this information will be answered. A comprehensive research paper is planned that will be available at cost for those needing further detail. |
