WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge

by Gamaliel 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JCanon

  Hi Gam. This is the BIGGEST SCAM argument of Olof Jonsson and AlanF and you fell for it!!! The thousands of business documents are RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY and have nothing to do with ABSOLUTE chronology!!! In other words, will those tablets affect dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE, 587BCE or 529BCE? NO! So why bring it up? It's called "HAND WAVING" when there is nothing there.

  What's worse for your theory is that every one of the thousands of commercial tablets translated so far have matched the work of Ptolemy and Berossus. Here's Parker and Dubberstein's results after looking at literally thousands of these tablets (about 5,000): [also from a chart put together by AlanF over at: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm ]

  Of what use are dated commercial tablets, if the time-stamps are all faked?

  This is what I'm talking about. You DON'T UNDERSTAND this reference. Am I claiming these CONTEMPORARY documents were fakedl? No! You don't understand what RELATIVE chronology is. Basically, these documents confirm, say, that Nebuchadnezzar had business activity for years 1-43 of his reign. Am I saying that's not true. No. But does that prove that year 19 of his reign was actually in 586BCE? No. Does that prove it was in 529BCE? No. Does it prove it was in 607BCE? No. So why are you bringing it up as the 'WORSE OF MY THEORY"? Only because AlanF scammed you into thinking this were relevant to absolute dating. They are not. But the NUMBERS are nice and big so he uses this argument for shock value and you fell for it. So here it is. If there were ten million documents from year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar it would not support the 587BCE chronology any more than it supports the 607BCE or the 511BCE chronology. That's why the focus must FIRST be on the astronomical texts which is the only source we have for ABSOLUTE DATING. Even the Bible has not one single "absolute" dating reference!!! So you see, you have said nothing and been taken on a wild goose chase. In the meantime, you still have conflict between Bible and pagan records? When are you going to get serious about this topic? No thanks to Alan and Olof, of course. The business tablets work for everybody. Why bring them up?

  According to your figures, anyone paying back a 7 year loan from the last year of Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of Nabonidus is actually paying his loan for up to 25 years. Surely, he would have noticed, and his scribe would have trouble finding work again.

  Ha! Sorry, but from the banks point of view, the conspiracy gyps them out of 26 years of interest! Besides that, that is not the nature of these texts. These texts simply record purchases made during a certain year of the reign of the king. That's all. The specific year cannot be determined from these texts.

  Yet, all the actual tablets make sense with the above chronology. But your numbers fly in the face of all the tablets and imply the impossible feat of faking these tablets at some point. It is ludicrous in the extreme.

  Again, you're not talking to ME but to someone who thinks you're talking about absolute dating. The tablets work for ANYBODY'S CHRONOLOGY, even 607BCE. They don't fly in the face of anything, except maybe for you who don't seem to understand this topic, right?

  You imply the absolute impossibility of coordinating a single conspiracy among the clay-scribes who are working for Babylonian banks, trading firms, kings, princes, temples, and even the common people who transacted business with those entities.

  As I noted before, you are MISTAKEN about these clay tablets. They are relative dating and so don't affect the absolute chronology so they are NOT directly connected to any conspiracy in any way. They are authentic and no problem. Why you think they are part of the argument here or have to be "revised" and therefore beyond believability is either because you truly don't know what you're talking about, or you are biased and need to create a "straw man" for people who don't know any better who might be reading this. Which is fine; I play games too. But academically it does not address the issues involved with the conspiracy. In fact, it seems interesting you need this invalid reference to boost your belief the conspiracy was "impossible". If it's so impossible, why not deal with the critical evidence instead of introducing these tablets which didn't need to be revised? Your argument is invalid and dismissed.

  Or maybe you think that someone had the job of smashing all the tablets that didn't fit the conspiracy but protecting all the tablets that did fit the conspiracy.

  Oh yes, absolutely, smashing documents!!! A smash heard around the world! I like that. But I have no problems with that because there should have been along with these contract tablets tens of thousands of astronomical texts for that entire 93+ year period!!! But where are they? They are presumed to have been destroyed since obviously they were around during the time of the Seleucid Era; the VAT4956 and the SK400 are "copies"!!! So why didn't not a single astronomical texts survive and yet we have thousands of business documents? The answer is SMASHING! Now this is how it worked since I see you want to make this harder. Say you're in charge of all the palace records for Babylon. You get an order from the top saying you need to destroy all the palace records for years 46-47 of Nebuchadnezzar, all the records for the 6 years of Darius, the Mede, etc. So what do you do? Panic? No. You just call over 5 of your hired workers, pull out those records which would be hundreds of them and them have them destroyed and give the bill to the Persian government! The result is that you still have thousands of documents left from the unaffected years, which wouldn't have to be destroyed or affected. That's it. For other possible records, which the Babylonians would have known about, like deeds and other records, if these were affected, they would have tried to destroy those too. Later they would redo the records too. No problem. So yes, smashing documents was necessary. It's the same old routine of government coverup. But the government has CONTROL over the records and they certainly had no problem destroying evidence which they did all the time. Do you know how many pharaohs destroyed and descrated the records and temples of previous kings they didn't like? It is done all the time. After a king dies, his records are in the hands of anybody who has the power to keep or destroy. So YES, I believe the offending years from the Neo-Babylonian period were destroyed along with ALL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL TEXTS. The missing astronomical texts proves how easy it would be to destroy centralized documents.

  Did you know that the practice of the clay-scribes often included making a duplicate on the envelope so that in the event of a dispute a judge could remove the clay envelope to check it against the clay "carbon copy" underneath?

  No, I didn't know that. But like I said, you're talking about something that isn't involved with the conspiracy. Those documents would not be a target for revision.

  Of the thousands of these tablets, your imaginary conspirators would have to find each one, recreate the ones that would have destroyed the conspiracy, and then rebury them to fool archaeologists in the 19th and 20th centuries, and never make a mistake. Hmmmmmmmm!

  Again, you are mistaken. You're talking about some other conspiracy. These documents would not have to be revised. So I'm glad you got your rocks off on this one, but it's not part of the discussion. I like the clay tablets! They don't affect anything. The fact that YOU think they do, though, draws into question your gullability and lack of true understanding of the issues. But I blame OJ and AlanF for that because they use this propaganda technique to sensationize against the conspiracy. But it is NOT part of the conspiracy.

  Funny how everything they dig up keeps confirming the work of Berossus and Ptolemy that you need to cover up.

  Oh, you mean like the VAT4956 that has double-dating to 511BCE as well as 568BCE proving they had two dates for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Yeah, it is "funny" how we keep finding out about the conspiracy.

  If your method of reading one or two astronomical diaries doesn't fit the above, and you say they involve fakery and forgery anyway -- I'd say, throw them out.

  Ha! That's what you'd like to do. But this is just more inexperiece on your part. There are TWO SETS OF RECORDS. ABSOLUTE DATING which is astronomical texts, and RELATIVE DATING which is like the business tablets. You have to keep the two separate. Thousands of business tablets, or even a million would still leave us without any absolute dating!!! They only give us some flexible intervals, that's all!! So when it comes to ABSOLUTE DATING, you deal with the astronomical texts, which, yes, those that are "copies" already can be thrown out. But you are dealing with only a few records here. Maybe 5 or 6 at the most and you MUST DEAL WITH THEM to get the absolute chronology before you introduce the other documents. But you MUST keep them separate. 5000 business documents don't tell us what YEAR Jerusalem fell!! We need astronomical texts for that. So you can't throw out the astronomical texts on the basis of the more numerous contract tablets simply because they are more numerous. This is, thus, a non sequitor and invalid argument on your part. It means nothing.

  You don't need them anymore. It's better to enter the chronology of kingdoms with 5,000 good pieces evidence than with two bad pieces of evidence that are making you stumble. (Besides even though you claim the diaries are contradictory, even you will admit that one of those two contradictory readings just happens to fit the chronology attested above.)

  Yeh, right!!! It's nice and expected that once some of your own Persian records proves the conspiracy there would be a rush to disqualify that information and try to find some other string or rock to hold onto the revised chronology with. PROBLEM IS, the entire chronology is based on like two critical documents!!! The VAT4956 and the Assyrian eponym eclipse!!! That's what the "absolute" chronology is based on. That's where we get our DATING from. But now the VAT4956 gives you the option to date to 511BCE (actually, there is no option, you must redate to that date or be wrong) and the eponym eclipse works just as well (or better) in 709BCE vs 763BCE which falls right in line with the lower dating for the Neo-Babylonian period!!! So there is NOTHING that can challenge this now. NOTHING!! Except, perhaps the Bible. But turns out the Bible agrees that 511BCE is year 37 so we know the text was trying to make a reference to the original chronology! Once you have Bible and pagan records in agreement, therefore, there is no credible challange!!! It's time you faced reality.

  THE IRONY: It now takes a lot more faith to believe in 587BCE than 529BCE thanks to the VAT4956!!! For once the pagan chronologists need the faith!!! It's a nice switch!

  I know you've probably covered this before, but could you tell me exactly what evidence you have on the double dating. Not any interpretation of the evidence, I've seen enough of that, just the facts, as you see them.

  Are you TRULY ready for the evidence Gam? Are you?

  You can start of by asking AF to explain to you why Sachs/Hunger lied about what was in the text in Line 18. They claimed that the "moon" which was long away from Virgo on the 15th of Sivan was listed as still being in Virgo on that date, and per AF noting that the correct planet that matches the references was Venus!!! AF even said Sachs was wrong about that. But this could not be a "mistake" that inclusion was intentional. But why? What were Sachs/Hunger covering up? So we can start there. Get AF's side of the story on Line 18 then I'll show you how to calculate the 511BCE references using a sky mapping program.

  Thanks, Gamaliel

  You're welcome. But DROP the business document argument! It shows your inexperience!!!! Please! (smile)
• 

  JCanon

  Well, you see, Gamaliel, if instead of measuring astronomical events from Babylon, you measure them from Honolulu, you find more or less a match between JCanon's chronology and certain astronomical texts. So it's clear that it wasn't really Babylonian priests who took the measurements, but pre-ancestral Hawaiians who communicated with the Babylonians via cell phone.

  HI AF, Everybody wants you to explain how you found the original translators of the VAT4956, Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger in a lie for line 18 of the text which you discovered and corrected. They claimed the "moon" was still in Virgo around the 15th and it is clear that was inaccurate and something they would not have accidentally made a mistake about. Further it was really VENUS that was the reference. Why do you think they didn't want people to know Venus was in Virgo on that date? Why did they lie? What were they trying to cover up? I think, by their names, they are both Jewish. Is it possible they really believe their own chronology and were just trying to trip up the Christians with this text? That is, they know the text was a fake but wanted to make it work out to support the pagan fake chronology which the Christians are using to claim their Messiah arrived at the right time? I guess I shouldn't second guess them, but for some reason they didn't want people looking at this line too closely. Maybe you can explain that.

  As far as Honolulu goes...more sensationalism. I don't mind taking the heat for the Honolulu reference, but you don't explain WHY that came up. You don't explain LINE 8 of the text where the location of the MOON AND SUN are given near the time of sunset. The position is 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum and that is a mismatch for the Babylonian location. That means, yes, the program is off per this text. That could be for a lot of reasons but since the programs are coordinated for the Seleucid Period documents, it would seem that the VAT4956 was created before those documents.

  At any rate, GAM and others: If you use the Babylonian position in the canon for Lines 3 and 14, you get a mismatch for 568BCE and a mismatch for 511BCE. But you also get a mismatch for Line 8 which positions the Moon 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum at the time of sunset. Since this is believed to be an OBSERVED event, if you adjust the 'location' so that sunset occurs earlier when the Moon was in that position, it checks out to be astronomically accurate. That is, there was a place on the earth that did observe the new moon when the moon was 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum. When you adjust to that location (which just coincidentally happens to be close to the LONGITUDE --not lattitude of Honolulu, Hawaii) then it changes the lunar positions (not planetary positions) by 13.5 hours. When that happens, then Line 3 and Line 14 have a TEXT MATCH for 511BCE lunar locations.

  What is interesting therefore, is that the VAT4956 was created before an apparent second, more aggressive phase of the astronomical conspiracy took place! Why do I say that? Because the SK400 eclipses are basically in line with the canon. That means you can demonstrate an introduction of about 12 hours of fake lunar rotational times between the VAT4956 and the SK400. This proves or suggests that not only did the Persians cleverly create new texts relfecting the revised chronology, but for some reason thought it was practical or advisable to also fake the observations by about 12 hours (which expands to 13.5 hours by 568BCE) during the Seleucid Period. But this was not done until after the VAT4956 was created which apparently reflects the original lunar cycle!!!

  So yes, it's complex but it's like the claim that the Persians destroyed certain business tablets from their archives. Since we know the astronomical texts didn't survive and are presumed to be destroyed, it supports the destruction of the clay tablets. Likewise, if we only had the SK400 it might be hard to establish the lunar times were revised. But since the VAT4956 itself has a different lunar cycle than the later astronomical texts, it forces us to acknowledge that aspect of the revision too. I have my "theory" as to why they might have wanted to do that, but I don't have to promote that here.

  At any rate, you can decide what you want on your own. The more you know about the VAT4956 the better. Then you can decide if the Persians were trying to actually make a reference to 511BCE or not. If they were, the only logical explanation is that it was the original year for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.

  But even without that, Biblically you have to date year 37 in 511BCE because of the 70 weeks prophecy dated to the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE.

  No matter what, the Bible is still going to contradict the pagan chronology. The problems with the astronomical texts, the double dating, the different lunar times all are part of what happened during this conspiracy and are mounting evidence against simply accepting the dating from this period without question!

  But you must be INFORMED. You must examine this DIRECTLY. You can't just take my word or AF's word for what's what.

  Ciao

  Gary
• 

  JCanon

  JCanon, OK. You took the easy one. Anyone can claim a conspiracy after the fact.

  Not true, but go on....

  A conspiracy remember, is not evidence, it's just the easiest way to dismiss evidence.

  Not true. Take the VAT4956. It has two references that match 511BCE allegedly. That means there are TWO DATES for the same year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. That this might be confusing IF this was a contemporary document!!! But if its a document 200 years after the fact....then it might be "evidence" of an attempt to hide some reference to an original chronology that has been changed. That is ALL this is. The DOUBLE-DATING requires you to at least suppose there was a revision--call that a "conspiracy" or not. We know the ancients revised their records all the time, so there's no academic issue here on revisionism. Therefore, the only thing that really needed to be done, now that we have the 511BCE dating staring at us, is to see if it matches ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE TIMELINE other than the one the 568BCE dating belongs to since we know that timeline is faked now. Thus we wonder if there was any question or contradictions or problems with the 587BCE chronology? Is there? YES! The Bible for one, which dates year 37 in 511BCE. Oops! Since the Bible is the superior record anyway, what happens is that you simply now UNDERSTAND why the 511BCE reference is in this conspiracy text. It was a desperate way to save in a safe place, in PLAIN SIGHT, some secret reference to the original chronology. So now we know, confirmed by the Persians that they once dated year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE. Since the cryptic date is 511BCE, it confirms that 568BCE was the faked date! Get the point? The CONSPIRACY theory is developed because of the contradictions and the evidence, not the other way around.

  How do you account for the clay tablets that were CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS, documents that create chaos if changed?

  Ha, again your inexperience and IMAGINATION. But this is a good point, I'm glad you brought it up, because....if we presume the original chronology was 26 years longer for the Neo-Babylonian Period and 82 years shorter for the Persian period originally, then instead of CHAOS in the records, there should be improved clarity! That's one of the challenges of the conspiracy theory; things should work out better when the original chronolog is put back in place. And that is what happens! But case in point, there would be no CHAOS say for the Neo-Babylonian period, since that Period was REDUCED. We're adding years back into that chronology and so there is no chaos, no overlapping time lines or anything!!! So any "chaos" would have to be looked at during the PERSIAN PERIOD where there were 82 extra years added. That's a scarier situation. But of course, there is no chaos there either. No problem removing 30 years from Darius I and 30 years from Artaxerxes II and combining the reign of Artaxerxes and Xerxes! They say the Persian Period records are the "darkess period in human history". And of course, it is because there were lots of documents destroyed. So what CHAOS! What a big word for just the opposite. But I'll show how CHAOS is corrected in this quick example. Look up the "Delian Problem". It's folklore that says when the Peloponnesian War broke out a plague occurred in Athens and the oracle at Delos said that it would be stopped if someone could double the size (area) of the alter. That was a mathematical challenge the Greeks were not prepared to do at the time but the story goes that Plato was consulted on the problem. Well guess what? The revised date for the PPW is 431BCE moved back from 403BCE. That means Plato wasn't even born yet when the war began; he was born in 528BCE. That's that's CHAOS!!! Since obviously his mother had problems trying to communicate with Plato who was still unfertilized in her womb in 531BCE, right??? Now that's CHAOS! But what happens when you -- OH MY!---remove those extra years and redate the war per a better eclipse to 403BCE? It means Plato was 25 when the War began and thus the story about his being consulted is likely true!! It's just that it's hard to change folklore but easy to change historical records. But it answers the issue of the conspiracy, that being, the revisions are suppose to create more "chaos" than the original chronology, so that when you put the years back, the things that don't make sense suddenly make sense again. There are numerous references like this, none more critical than the BIBLE'S own references that don't work with the revised chronology. So far from any CHAOS being created, which is all in your mind....CLARITY and harmony come about.

  Are you one of those who believes in selective destruction from every possible cache of documents from every town in Babylon, from every temple, from every trading and lending business, from the basement of every house where such documents might also be kept.

  Hello? Just because you don't believe in a time of war that the Persians would have had the manpower and ability to destroy records if they wanted to doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I'm willing to be practical about this. For SURE, there would have been zero problem for the palace records to have been DESTROYED. Furthermore, only a few critical documents had to be destroyed. What is not left of official records, would only be a few private records and only from those offending years. What you must CONFIRM is WHERE the current "cache" of documents actually come from? I mean if you have 5000 documents and 4800 of them came from palace records and 200 from other official places, then there would be no problem getting rid of those records. That is where the majority of these documents are found, in libraries and archieves in the palaces, not scattered all over the kingdom. So again, you're making the conspiracy MUCH BIGGER than necessary to add to your hope of dismissing it as IMPRACTICAL instead of a slight possibility. But you are doing it erroneously and incompetently, thus it will be here to be considered by those serious about the Bible or the true facts. If the conspiracy is so incredibly IMPOSSIBLE then why do you have to exaggerate and misrepresent the facts? Even the "conspiracy" term itself probably shouldn't be applied here too specifically since all we're talking about is the Persians revising their records for political reasons. No one will argue that the ancient people didn't change and revise their records! Thus all you're saying is that for some reason, even though the Egyptians did, the Assyrians did, the Greeks did and everybody else, that these oh so honest Persians and Babylonians just wouldn't dream in a million years of revising their records for any reason ever and they protected their records with a vegenace so that we have true history coming to us from their records, even though the are 90% copies. But the Jews, were dishonest and incompetent and got everything wrong, claiming all kinds of erroneous things including a 70-year desolation period during the NeoBabylonian period beginning year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. What LIARS! Why all of a sudden are the Persians so honest and the Bible and the Jews are such liars? It doesn't make sense. Put them on the same scale and check them out using the same criteria.

  What about the vaults of the sons of Egibi, where even the lengths of "rule" of the "dynasty" of CEOs of that company also matches those documents found in the rest of the country, and also fits perfectly with the dynasty of the Kings of Babylon and even a little beyond. Did Berossus start a massive digging campaign to go back and recreate 50,000 clay tablets for long obsolete "banking" records when he could have just smashed them all? What about Persian tablets which must be completely FAKED because you wish to subtract years from their dynasties? Someone went to the trouble of creating thousands of tablets with king's reigns for years when that king was no longer in power?

  This is a good point and even thoough there are some inconsistencies here, the response to that would be if any of the ongoing records reached down past Darius II then they would have been a target for destruction and thus if they survived they would have been revised. The only critical issue for the conspiracy, therefore, would be whether or not this family business was still up and operating during the reign of Darius II or into the Persian Period? If so then the government would have forced them to destroy their records or revise them. Remember, even the Jews revised their records to conform to the revisions in the Perisan Period. Artaxerxes was a very, very, very, very well liked king!! The Jews loved him! This was to protect his life. They lied and said "Xerxes" had died so the Greeks wouldn't try to assasinate him. 30 years were added to Darius' reign so it would look like he was old enough to be the grandfather of Artaxerxes I. The Jews complied with the revisions by suppressing canonical Esdras (Ezra/Nehemiah) and replacing it with apocryphal "Esdras". They even named the revised text the same thing!!! So this was a very well organized and "patriotic" conspiracy in Persia aimed at fooling the Greeks, which they did (and still are, apparently....). Only now, that we all the records in front of us and can make comparisons, it is easy to see where the years were added and subtracted. I mean, it's not like we don't know WHO made the revisions and WHEN and WHY? Most people don't get to that point though because there is such an AVERSION, an inappropriate aversion to consider even the remotest possibility of a "conspiracy" when it's right here. But that's ALL OVER NOW! The VAT4956 double dating ENDS that. It's no longer a THEORY they changed their chronology. We have DIRECT PROOF they had two dates for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and we know that 511BCE was the original date, 568BCE was the fake date and that's that! The only way to change that level of reference if is the Bible critically disagreed. Since it doesn't but gives the precise same date....it's over! It's over for the INFORMED and the CRITICAL. It's not over for those who need to maintain "political correctness" for some reason with the false chronology. So in a way, the Biblicalists now really don't care what the archaeologists and everybody else is saying because we have the power to call them fakes and liars and incompetents and are no longer impressed or influenced by their lies. After being presented with the facts, if they maintain their 568BCE fantasies, they are dismissed as incompetent or dishonest and left to their own error. It's just that simple.

  A JW, once a friend, told me that Satan and his demons had the power to create cuneiform tablets just to throw us off. I should have warned my mother and father about getting too close to these Satanic Verses when they went to the British Musem last year with a tour of JWs.

  Look, Gamaliel .... The info in the VAT4956 is PROFOUND. But it only simply is the most direct evidence we have of something others had long ago accepted, that the Bible's chronology is true and that the pagans had revised their chronology, apparently. That's all. The VAT4956 simply confirms that, yes, the did revise their chronology and played games with their records. The entire chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period hung on this one text, the VAT4956. That was the one text that stumped lots of people because it was so direct and so certain. Now that we have the double-dating in the text, it is just as certain 511BCE was the original chronology and so it's over. It's almost like the TEMPLE OF DAGON. The entire temple rested on two pillars that were very close to each other. Those pillars are astronomical texts, very similar, "diaries", both with double dating to the original chronology. Once those two pillars are pushed down as supporting this chronology temple of Dagon, then the entire temple falls with a huge crash. There is nothing else holding it up. So put all the faith you want into your fantasy conspiracy documents, the chief conspiracy document of all, the VAT4956 is now a "hostile witness". And it's so beautiful because it actually gives us the original reference to the original chronology!!! And it is EXACTLY what the Bible says it is! So give us credit. Give the Biblicalists CREDIT WHEN DUE! We won this argument. We might not win the "the flood" argument or anything else, but this one is won. The Bible is proven true by their own Persian records. And that's that. JCanon
• 

  JCanon

  Hi Gam....

  Just so that in the frick and frack of trying to discuss the pagan documents, which are not that important compared to the Bible anyway, may as well see what the advanced Biblical chronology is in line with the VAT4956.

  COORDINATING THE BIBLE'S CHRONOLOGY REFERENCS WITH THE VAT4956:

  As you know, the VAT4956 dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE in a cryptic reference in a text otherwise dated to 568BCE. That dismisses 568BCE as the fake date and established 511BCE as the true original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Now how does this more truthful reference line up with critical Bible chronology?

  Fortunately, this is related to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar which is well documented so it's not that hard. Here are the two direct references to 529BCE for the fall of Jerusalem:

  1) 7 TIMES METHOD: We can calculate the fall of Jerusalem via the "7 times" prophecy which connects the fall of Jerusalem with the second coming. That year has to be the same years as the "1335 days" prophecy. That dates the second coming 45 years after the "end", that is, the end of the gentile times, when the Jews would regain control over their promised land, ending a symbolic 1290 days. Since that clearly happened in 1947, 45 years later dates the second coming in 1992. Thus from this reference we are forced to date the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE (2520 minus 1992 is 528+1=529BCE). How does 529BCE for year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar compare to year 511BCE for year 37? It's a PERFECT MATCH!

  2) 70 WEEKS METHOD. This simply uses the chronology of some, including Martin Anstey who believe that Cyrus mus fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy. That means that the word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem in the 1st of Cyrus must be 483 years before the baptism of Christ, which occurred in the 15th of Tiberius which was 29CE. That dates the beginning of that prophecy in 455BCE. The witnesses agree that date begins the prophecy but claim the work by Nehemiah in the 20th of Artaxerxes is what fulfills the prophecy; thus they don't have to make an 82-year adjustment like Anstey but only about a 10-year adjustment for the reign of Artaxerxes, dating year 20 from 445 to 455BCE. At any rate, 455BCE is the correct year for the 1st of Cyrus. This was preceded by 70 years of desolation and "servitude" of those last deported off the land. This is per Josephus and the Bible. This is dated specifically in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, so we don't have to deal with any other conflicting chronologies for any of the other kings. If year 23 falls in 525BCE then how does that date year 37? the year found in the VAT4956? It dates it in 511BCE!!!

  So you see, you now have perfect harmony between the Bible prophecies and now a confirmation from the Persian records that, indeed, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar began in 547BCE!!

  This is true. The Bible is true!!!

  It's wonderful!!!! Wonderful to have the truth!!!

  Come out of the darkness...into the glorious light!

  JCanon
• 

  AlanF

  Sorry JCanon, Gary or whoever you're pretending to be this day: we've been over all this before. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're wrong.

  AlanF
• 

  gumby

  Who really gives a shit. Is it going to make any difference?

  You guys who base this on a book none of you believe anyway. A lot of writing for what?

  Gumby
• 

  hillary_step

  You guys who base this on a book none of you believe anyway. A lot of writing for what?

  Gumby,

  It has been through the diligent and painstaking research done on this subject that many people were first introduced to a conviction that the WTS was incorrect in its chronology. This has led to the emotional liberation of thousands.I personally thank persons like Jonsson, Alanf, and others for their work, even if I do so on behalf of others.

  HS
• 

  JCanon

  Sorry JCanon, Gary or whoever you're pretending to be this day: we've been over all this before. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're wrong.

  AlanF

  Sorry AlanF or whoever you are right now, but simply claiming I'm wrong won't get it. Furthermore, the EVIDENCE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. But just so we don't get off the topic. There has ALWAYS been a choice between the Bible and pagan chronology. As you know, Martin Anstey clearly believed there was no choice but to have Cyrus fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy. Even COJ agreed that "strictly" speaking Cyrus should have fulfilled that prophecy except for the pagan historical evidence to the contrary we have. So at this point it is all THEOLOGICAL. Whether to believe the Bible or the pagan records. I happen to believe with Martin Anstey that Cyrus fulfills the 70 weeks prophecy and thus I date that event in 455BCE. It just so happens that along the way of my travels I picked up my own pagan references to get that dating independently of the Bible, two referendes you can't deal with which are: 1) Josephus claiming in Antiquities 11.1.1 that 70 years occurred from year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus. That gives me the correct Biblical interpretation for the 70 years!!! Even though it disagrees by 4 years with the witnesses. 2) The VAT4956, of course, which I use, whether rightly or wrongly, stupidly or with great brilliance to match two references to 511BCE which just so happens by great coincidence to all me to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar that year, which gives me the same chronology as dating Cyrus in 455BCE. Add 70 years to 455BCE and you get 525BCE for year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. It's just that simple. Jerusalem falls in 529BCE! Perfect. OTHER ALAN F DISMISSALS: 1) HUNGER/SACHS LIES IN THE VAT4956: No way was it an "honest mistake" that Sachs/Hunger lied in the VAT4956 about line 18. They wanted no one to notice that Venus identified the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa a TIL UR-A) as beta-Virginis, which throws a wrench in their other assignments, namely Line 3 claiming the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) was beta-Virginis, instead of sigma-Leonis. Of course, AF, much like COJ, you have me the critical references I need, which I can now present to a university professor of Biblical studies or Akkadian studies. That is, I got the record from you that proves that GIR ar sa UR-A was the original name for sigma-Leonis!!! Thus the VAT4956 references are different from later texts that not only rename beta-Virginis but also introduce 12 hours of fake lunar times, distorting the entire astronomical observations for that period making them 12 hours off! Thus the VAT4956 and the SK400 have different lunar positions!!! So you see, I'm in a much more critical position now than before. We haven't covered some of this. Still no problem proving that. 2) EARTHQUAKES, IN ONE PLACE AFTER ANOTHER: Only because you choose to focus on this for some reason. Turns out that "tremors" is used to reference agitation or "quaking" including in social situations or in a storm. It does not have to be translated as "earthquake". Thus an alternative reference to "earthquakes in one place after the other" would be the more direct interpretation of "tremors in one place after the other" or "agitations in one place after the other" those agitations being social agitations. Therefore, your earthquakes reference sort of proves this is the correct interpretation and understanding, since I agree with you-- how could you compare critically these earthquakes? But prior to WWII, which is the critical time in question, specifically, when there would be food shortages (the Great Depression) and pestilence (the Black Plague) there would also be much "unrest" and agitations or shakings in one place after the other as far as the social and political instability of the times, which is certainly true. JUST BECAUSE I'M BORED.... I'm not really "bored" but maybe a bit lazy. But I'm in a position now, with enough of the loose ends tied up to prsesent the VAT4956 double-dating to some academic folks who are starting to question the conventional chronology across the board now (i.e. Rohl, Finkelstein, Courville, et al). Once I provide them with the critical contradictions and the Biblical chronology plus now the double-dating in the VAT4956, possibly there will be some academic documentation of the "alternative" Biblical chronology now supported by astronomical text confirmation. It's not a big issue, but there is no reason why pertinent researchers writing about this period shouldn't know about the suspicious finding. Once they do and then reevaluate Persepolis, the Bible will come out as the true original chronology. But it has to be someone who is already hostile to the current dating. Anyway, thanks, again for the references and teaching me astronomy!!! I know that you're a kind and intelligent person and that people are more important than these issues to you...same here. This is just a fun side circus to keep us distracted, right? Well, I'm off to have fun. Which means LUNCH!!!! JCanon
• 

  Gamaliel

  JCanon,

  I'm surprised that you were capable of responding in such length, but completely missed the point. You seem stuck on the idea that I didn't know that the business documents only provide a relative chronology. I've never thought they provided anything more. You wasted countless lines on the strawman argument, unless, of course, you intended to overburden anyone who wished to trudge through it all before reaching your own strained argument.

  Your position is that you DO believe a conspiracy of sorts was responsible for the destruction and creation of all the business documents that finally resulted in the intended interlocked, relative chronology that hides a true chronology we were never supposed to discover. And that this true chronology is primarily available to us through hints left on the astronomical diaries -- the very documents which you say were most carefully destroyed, ostensibly to keep us from knowing these very hints. And an error or two from Josephus (carefully selected from dozens of others of his chronology errors) and the supposed reality behind an easily explained "mythical" reference to Plato.

  You keep complaining that the tablets are only a relative chronology, but that's my point. That's all we need to see that your proposal is off base. You've asked for a few extra years on each of thosse kings, and have proposed that all the documents were located in "controlled centers" except for a few hundred of the thousands. What do you do with those few hundreds? You think you can make them sound insignificant by comparing them with thousands? Another fallacy. How much evidence do you even have about the actual numbers in centrally controlled places versus the numbers in uncontrolled areas. My guess is that you are guessing.

  But DROP the business document argument! It shows your inexperience!!!! Please! (smile)

  I'm also guessing that you wish to dismiss the issue because you it reveals a weakness in your overall theory. (And, no, I don't expect you to admit that, even to yourself.)

  Truth is, I could live with a theory that called for a conspiratorial change to the official, royal chronology. That's all fairly centralized, and we'd have little evidence either way since the next world power tends to destroy these "official" documents anyway, by default. But what about the unbiased daily documents of the mundane transactions, trades and contracts? The story that they tell in aggregate holds a lot more weight than your fudged astronomical diaries. If those diaries clearly show two dates, I wouldn't necessarily care for either one of them.

  Even these arguments about relative chronology versus actual dates are not worth much to me. It's all relative. It's only that we think we have a better idea of exactly when an event happed relative to our own time when we can attach a BCE or AD/CE number to it. Some folks want to prove that an event happened 490 years before or after some other event -- all relative. Or 70 years before or after some event. Some folks want to prove an event happened 2,520 years before or after another event -- again, all relative. 1,000 years from now it might still be of "relative" interest that you once thought you discovered a chronology pointing to some dates that you thought were related to your "calling."

  The real problem is that Bible has already shown us what kind of book it is -- useful in many contexts as a moral guide, but also useless in many contexts as a moral guide (let the reader use discernment). But the Bible is 100% consistently useless when it comes to a meaningful chronology for our day, except to show that we shouldn't rely on it for chronology any more than we should rely on pagan kings.

  These actual "numbered" dates (as "opposed" to the relative chronology) would not even be of any interest to me either if it weren't for the mystical hold they have on so many people. Seems that a lot of people have decided to hypocritically dismiss the Bible's own advice (and failed record) about chronology. And they leverage their interpretations of that chronology to control the actions of others. It's a travesty and a tragedy, and that's why we discuss it on this forum.

  Gamaliel
• 

  simwitness

  Gamaliel,

  Very nicely summed up.

  Thank you.