Hi City Fan, with all due respect...you don't understand the concept of double dating in the first place, so you're not in a position to criticize it. It has nothing to do with any planetary references, ONLY LUNAR references and only those that are MISS MATCHED to 568BCE.
In other words, in Line 3, the original translators of that text, Sachs/Hunger, noted "an error for the 8th" for that reference. In other words, it didn't match the right location. THAT's the reference that matches 511BCE. So it's not at all what matches 568BCE it is what doesn't. The text was designed to hide the references to 511BCE by making them look like an error of a few hours or a day and have all the other references match the revised chronology for 568BCE. So the other references are SUPPOSED to match 568BCE. Therefore, they have nothing to do with how the conspiracy was set up to reflect on 511BCE.
It's only Line 3 that is a "mismatch" for 568BCE, pointed out by Sachs/Hunger themselves, and Line 14, which was noted to be a mismatch by Otto Neugebaur. THEY said it, not me. All I did was note that both "errors" were said to be a day off and when you compare them they match another year, so it wasn't an accident. That year is 511BCE. ANYBODY can check this out.
I had the idea that you actually understood these concepts and were keeping up with them, but apparently not. At any rate, you can't rate something as "BS" that you yourself don't comprehend.
Oh well...I tried.
JC
It's just the same cut and paste BS that he usually posts. Now take his VAT 4956 double dating rubbish. The VAT 4956 diary has 30 astronomical references that have different cycles, e.g. the position of Saturn that repeats itself once every 29.5 years approximately. Another reference is the "lunar three" observations which repeat every Saros or 18 years 11 days approx. There are also conjunctions of Venus which repeat every 8 years and conjunctions of the Moon which repeat every 19 years.
I don't cut and paste, I type fast. Don't you see the typos? Furthermore, as noted, the planetary observations and lunar observations that match 568BCE are not the references in question, so your bringing them up shows you don't understand what is going on with this example of revisionism. All that you stated is true but irrelevant. Why don't you comment on WHY YOU THINK Line three is "an error for the 8th" as Sachs/Hunger says? It's Line 3 that doesn't match that's the problem. The other observations were meant as camouflage. Get it? Since they couldn't preserve any of the original texts which had to be destroyed, they decided to hide some references buried in a long "diary" with all the revised info. "Hide in plain sight." So it wouldn't matter if they had a thousand perfectly matched references to 568BCE, it's the ones that don't match that are linked to other years that has us questioning these references.
The second thing of note is that any text that is created after the dates in question is easy to fabricate. You seem to think that copying information from old texts accurately and placing them in a new one and then putting a new king's year on the tablet makes it authentic. It doesn't. You're out of your debth here, unfortunately. But a lot of people are, this is technical. At any rate, at this point it is clear you're in no position to advise on this topic, so I'll just ignore your observation for now and blame it on not making myself understandable to you. I'll try to make it simpler the next time.
Now JCanon has an agenda which is to date this diary as 511 BC so as to prove his messiah-ness!
No I don't. I didn't INVENT the 455BCE chronology! Martin Anstey had already considered that 455BCE (457BCE) was the 1st of Cyrus and that the Babylonian records were in error. There is a whole group that follows this and acknowledges the Persian Period is 82 years off. I just agree with them. I didn't fabricate Josephus' statement in Antiquities 11.1.1 that says the 70 years were a literal 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cryus. That's there! It contradicts the current chronology! Period. It has nothing to do with me other than I agree with their position. I'm not creating anything. When you date Cyrus to 455BCE then add the 70 years per Josephus you get year 23 in 525BCE and the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE. Simple. You can even find a reference to this dating in Olof Jonsson's book! It's not my theory on this, it's just one of many, only I agree with this.
But what YOU have to deal with is that you can get an astronomical program and look up 511BCE, after ajusting the lunar position per line 8 to 4 cubits below beta-Germinorum as the text states then check for the 9th of Nisan and the 5th of Sivan and the moon will be precisely in the location the texts say. 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion on the 9th of Nisan, and 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis (bright star behind the Lion's foot) on the 5th. Because BOTH match a specific year, you can't presume this was not intentional. But if it were and there was a reference to 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, it should have had some "significance" historically, right? Was this the original dating? That would be the first presumption. So might funny to me, out of all the 'creative" but indepdent dating match-ups you can get out of the VAT4956, you get 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar which just so happens, BIG SURPRISE to be the same dating as year 23 in 525BCE. Now I wonder why that is? The Bible's chronology is the correct one. The fact that there is some surviving evidence in this from in the ancient records to the same chronology, just proves the Bible is correct, that's all.
So he ignores every observation in this diary as yet another conspiracy and sticks with the lunar conjunctions which repeat every 19 years.
What can I say? I don't need the VAT4956 to prove there was a conspiracy. The Bible says at Ezra 6:14,15 that Darius I only ruled for six years and he was followed on the throne by a king called "Artaxerxes". My first research was looking into the Persian historical information when I found out Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. So it's more than just about this text. This text just gives us a good "absolute date" that links us to Nebuchadnezzar!! That's what's nice about it.
Anyway, I'M CONVINCED about this. Maybe only I and those who follow me need to have this interpretation of the information anyway. And don't feel bad you don't grasp the concept. Believe me, many don't including those at the British Museum. They just don't get it. I feel like Einstein when he came out with the theory of relatively (even though it's not accurate, but, same scenario...)
Unfortunately for him even to make a few of these references work he has to use a different measuring system than the Babylonians used and also has to ignore the scientifically proven and observable rate of decline of the Earth's rotational speed. This means his "double dates" only work from Honolulu!
Yes, I know this was a bit much for you. But Sachs/Hunger already said that line 3 was an "error". Line 8 places the moon 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum, which is not where it is when you locate from Babylon. But it IS where it is from the longitude near Honolulu. In other words, if you observe from Honolulu and punch in that date, and check for the lunar location it will be 4 cubits below beta-Geminorium. This was done because of the text when the entire text was being charted for accuracy. If you don't locate the moon there, then it's another "ERROR". So Honolulu was a direct result of the text adjustment. If you don't want to make the correct text adjustment, if that's too much for you, then fine. Anyway, it was only by accident after that relocation was made that it was discovered that lines 3 and 14, previous "errors" for 568BCE anyway now matched 511BCE. Since 511BCE was the original dating, of course, that's why the "errors" were there. There was their way of hiding their reference to the true chronology. What can I say. I understand it. Sorry you can't.
There are eclipses he changes for other dates to fit his agenda where Babylon is at Babylon, not Honolulu!
Not sure what you mean by this. Once you relocate PER THE TEXT you have to apply that to ALL OTHER LOCATION references. As far as I know, I apply the "Honolulu" location for all eclipses to get the correct timing. That means lunar eclipses from the time of Babylon all the way to the time of Herod during Jesus' time. I don't believe I'm inconsistent in this area. You might be mistaken. But I don't know what you specifically are referring to.
I'm fully expecting more cut and paste BS in reply to this. Instead I suggest he goes on an astronomy course, or goes to the nearest psychiactric ward and checks in. CF.
Well, I can understand your position, because it does take some "adjusting" to do. But to my credit.
1. AlanF discovered that Sachs/Hunger had lied about the observation for Line 18. They said the "moon" was below the BSBLF near the 15th when the Moon was no where near Virgo at the time having long since past. Thus this was not an error. Instead, Venus was in that position. When you locate Venus there, as Neugebaur does then it changes the definition for this star and changes the reference to Line 3, making Sachs/Hunger inaccurately assigning the wrong star. The British Museum acknowledged this was an "error" for line 18. So guess what? If you want to compare the text accurately to the astronomy program you first have to get through the "BS" of the professionals to do so. But, I'm sure since you admire them so, you think the error is perfectly acceptable and it doesn't mean anything. To get to the TRUTH you have to sometimes apply a lot of heat and do a lot of washing. That's all this is.
Hey, I may very well be crazy. But it wasn't ME who first believed the Bible's chronology is more reliable than the pagan chronology and decided to date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE, presuming an 82-year discrepancy. That was Martin Anstey and many others who followed. I'm with them. I don't trust the post-dated and skimpy records of the Persians, especially when I CAN SEE CLEARLY they hid references to the original chronology in some of their texts.
So granted, maybe I'm crazy. But maybe, you're just not that smart after all. Ever think about that?
JC
