Hi Doug, I have no idea why my paragraphing doesn't work. Your main point was very well made. Why does the WTS use the SK400 to support/prove ancient dating but reject the VAT4956 as fraudulent? That's hypocritical. Besides that, only one of the eclipses can ever work once you adjust the timing. That's the downfall of precise "earth times" to calculate lunar events--it virtually limits you to a very specific match year. So both the SK400 and the VAT4956 being "copies" 200+ years later are automatically considered to be fraudulent and representing false dates, which both do. But fortunately, they are also "safety texts" which use "errors" for the primary year to point to the original dating. Both amazing link back to the original dates for Neb2 which match the Biblical dating. Thus the Bible, the VAT4956 and the SK400 all support the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE, and because of that, those thinking any other dating is credible are just incompetent at this point. The proof of the revision AND the original dating are contained in these two amazing texts! LS
Larsinger58
JoinedPosts by Larsinger58
-
14
539 BCE and an astronomical tablet
by Doug Mason inpage 453 of the wtss book, insight on the scriptures says that the eclipse records for the 7th year of cambyses can be used to calculate 539 bce for the fall of babylon.. to do this, the chronology article refers to j. n. strassmaier, f. x. kugler, t. oppolzer, and o. gingerich.. what did those people actually write?.
how does the wts manage to travel from the 7th year of cambyses to the date of the fall of babylon?.
http://www.jwstudies.com/539_bce_and_an_astronomical_tablet.pdf.
-
-
-
163
The Trinity
by The Quiet One ini have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.
what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?
i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?
-
-
Larsinger58
The trinity is referenced in Revelation as a clue to the 666-wild beast. The 666=the trinity doctrine. That is, three gods yet one god is the same as "666", 3 numbers yet one number. The 666-beast represents Christendom. The 666 converts to "KKK" which means Christendom would be known as a racist and white supremacist organization. White supremacy is part of the ancient Mysteries and Mithraism. The triangle and the pyramid represent Satan with the seeing eye at the top, the wise eye, which is what the white nations identify with, being the top race of all. Even in evolution the idea is that the darker races are closer to the ape while the most developed race is that of the white man. Even in Nazi Germany Hitler was measuring brain sizes to prove the superiority of the white nations. Satan would use this as his most effective tool in dividing and suppressing mankind. But, of course, since the 666-beast is linked with Christendom and thus false religion, that confirms the trinity doctrine is a false doctrine. LS
-
14
539 BCE and an astronomical tablet
by Doug Mason inpage 453 of the wtss book, insight on the scriptures says that the eclipse records for the 7th year of cambyses can be used to calculate 539 bce for the fall of babylon.. to do this, the chronology article refers to j. n. strassmaier, f. x. kugler, t. oppolzer, and o. gingerich.. what did those people actually write?.
how does the wts manage to travel from the 7th year of cambyses to the date of the fall of babylon?.
http://www.jwstudies.com/539_bce_and_an_astronomical_tablet.pdf.
-
-
Larsinger58
Can someone break this down into cliffnote version...Lars is the only 607 apologist i have seen here and not sure where it really falls without knowing all the back story.... I'm not a 607 BCE apologist. The basics here are that the WTS use the SK400 astrotext, the text that is otherwise dated to 523 BCE, year 7 of Kambyses, to establish the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, a date they feel is a "pivotal date" in secular history that is correct that can date other critical dates in the Bible. In a nutshell, if year 7 of Kambyses falls in 523 BCE, then the end of the rule of Cyrus would fall in 530 BCE. He ruled for 9 years so his rule would begin in 538 BCE. They fudge at little and claim the "decree" to rebuild Jerusalem would have gone out in his first year, 538 BCE, though the actual rebuilding started later in the fall of 537 BCE. 537 BCE is the date they assign to the return from Babylon to Judea. This ends the 70-year exile mentioned in the Bible, which they believe began when the Jews fleed out of Judea after the assassination of Gedaliah, and thus the same year Jerusalem fell! Thus they date the fall of Jerusalem to 607 BCE. 537 + 70 = 607 BCE This contradicts another key astronomical text, the VAT4956, which is no different than the SK400 in that it was created during the Seleucid Period. This text dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 BCE and thus dates year 19/18 to 587/586 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem. That's a 20-year discrepancy they see between the VAT4956 and the true Biblical chronology. So they dismiss the VAT4956 as historically not accurate. But this weakens their position on the SK400 which comes from the same period and is just as dismissible. So Doug and others are calling out the WTS on their hypocrisy; how they could promote one text as being accurate and another as being inaccurate, when both come from the wrong period and are "copies" of original texts. In reality, the WTS is correct in dismissing the credibility of the VAT4956, which also supports 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon, but they should have been consistent and also dismissed the SK400 as a fraudulent document as well. The SK400 belongs to the same revised timeline as does the VAT4956, the one that dates the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE! So if you use 539 BCE for dating the Neo-Babylonian Period, which both the SK400 and the VAT4956 do, then you are going to reflect dates based on the revised timeline. Thus 607 BCE is just as wrong as 587 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem. MY POSITION is to follow the Bible's strict timeline and date the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE, which is when the rebulding would have begun, 483 years prior to the baptism of Christ in 29 CE. In that case, the last deportation, year 23 of Neb2 (Jer. 52:30) would fall in 525 BCE and the fall of Jerusalem 4 years earlier in year 19 would fall in 529 BCE. 529 BCE is thus the true Biblical date for the fall of Jerusalem. Of course, the SK400 and the VAT4956, both "diaries" are used to hide references to the original timeline while sporting support by their dating to the revised timeline. The cryptic references to the original timeline are found in "errors" in both these texts. The "errors" are not matches for the promoted dating in the text, but match the original dating. For instance, the eclipse interval and times in the SK400 for two eclipses do not match 523 BCE, year 7, of Kambyses, but do match 541 BCE, which is the original date for year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II. The VAT4956 contains two "errors" in lines 3 and 14, giving a lunar position about a day earlier than needed to match 568 BCE for year 37 of Neb2. But if you compare the two errors, they match the year 511 BCE. If you date year 37 to 511 BCE, then year 7 would fall in 541 BCE, the year you get from the SK400. So now you have two "diaries" that show you the original timeline and dates. It is more critical to compare these dates to the Bible's timeline because we know the promoted dates in these texts are just camouflage and these are false dates belonging to the revised chronology. When we look at strict Bible chronology, as above, year 1 of Cyrus would fall in 455 BCE and thus the last deportation in year 23 of Neb2 to 525 BCE. 525 BCE for year 23 is thus compared to the VAT4956 and the SK400 dates for Nebuchadnezzar. Obviously, it is precisely the same dating. Year 23 falling in 525 BCE means year 7 falls in 541 BCE and year 37 falls in 511 BCE. So we basically know WHY these 'diaries" were created and why several copies were made of them. It's because they are "safety texts" created to preserve astronomical information from the original timeline, which dates the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar II to 547 BCE just as the Bible does. So 607 BCE or 587 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem is wrong, and 539 BCE is also wrong for the fall of Babylon. The true dating that survives in both these "diaries" dates the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar II to 547 BCE, which agrees with the Biblical dating for year 23 of Neb2 in 525 BCE based on the baptism of Christ in 29 CE. Sorry my original post ended up in one long paragraph due to a formatting error of some kind. Of course, those who promote this false evidence are hoping it is too complicated for you to understand and they will not discuss the "errors" in these texts that create the premise for revisionism, though the mere fact these are "copies" automatically tells you they are likely fraudulent documents representing false dates. These are not contemporary texts from these years, which sometimes you presume if they don't mention these are "copies" that are made over 200+ years after the fact. Thus people are deceived unless they are well informed about the evidence. The evidence actually supports the Bible's timeline now. Both the SK400 and VAT4956 both re-date the rule of Neb2 to where it should be, totally in agreement with the Bible. LS
-
21
What do you think of this argument?
by Druid ini stopped being a jw altogether when i went into college and took philosophy classes and started thinking for myself.
i understand a lot of you former jw's are still theists, in fact it seems probably the majority of you are.
i am agnostic, meaning i don't feel there is enough evidence for against either cause to subscribe my lifestyle to one belief.. .
-
-
Larsinger58
SERENITYNOW: Why you and not me? When Christ arrives his angels first seals the elect, which is 1,440,000. So they get an early confirmation by holy spirit and by the "sign of the son of man" of Jehovah's activities prior to Armageddon. So they get advanced confirmation of Jehovah's existence. This might in part be due to the intensity of Satan's propaganda against the existence of God or the truth of the Bible, such as all that information about how old the earth is and how old man is and evolution, etc. Some of this information might be convincing enough to even fool the elect into thinking the Bible is not true. So Jehovah simply provides them with the "sign of the son of man" (Matthew 24:29-30) and other signs of his existence via holy spirit. Sometimes Christ himself appears to them, depending upon the need. So "why not me?" first has to do with whether you are of the chosen elect or not. As you know, the "anointed" among Jehovah's witnesses always claim that they know of their heavenly calling via holy spirit. So they experience something different and more direct than those who are not chosen of the elect/anointed. One thing they all claim is that the bible seems different to them and it seems that it is talking directly to them. I experienced that same sense, that the Bible was written especially to me, particularly certain verses. So if you're of the elect, at this time, particularly since 1947, then you have several things that confirms for you that God is real and alive. The rest of the world don't experience this but will when Jehovah brings about Armageddon. At that point, when Jehovah sends angels to destroy the national governments, which means killing off the people who serve these governments and reject Christ's kingdom rule, then they will have their own direct proof of God. Keep in mind, the elect are only 1,440,000. The "144,000" are the 1/10th remnant who are natural Jews upon which pattern the Bride Class is built; 12 tribes, with 12,000 from each tribe. The other 90% are gentiles who become king-priests to rule with Christ for 1000 years on the earth. God provides them with direct proof to in part save them from worrying about anything Satan has provided to fool the rest of mankind, but also because they have certain duties involved with the pre-millennial world. So that's why I have direct proof of God before others, because I'm of the elect. But not to worry. Armageddon will soon be here and then all the world will know the god of the Bible is the true God, just as he showed all the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus. We're hoping the millennium will begin by December 21, 2012, so if that's the case, you'll have direct proof of God in less than 2 years! LS
-
21
What do you think of this argument?
by Druid ini stopped being a jw altogether when i went into college and took philosophy classes and started thinking for myself.
i understand a lot of you former jw's are still theists, in fact it seems probably the majority of you are.
i am agnostic, meaning i don't feel there is enough evidence for against either cause to subscribe my lifestyle to one belief.. .
-
-
Larsinger58
Hi Druid. Your concepts and comparisons explains why you are agnostic. What happened to me was on the opposite end of the scale. I was very zealous when young and "made the truth my own" early on. I didn't fully trust the WTS and considered them just as a adjunct to worship, not the mediator. Then in 1992 I became one of the anointed and started having closer interaction with God, holy spirit and the angels. So my faith was finally CONFIRMED by the more direct interaction. Little did I know this would lead to my being chosen as the physical identity of Christ at the second coming. Of course, after that, God could hardly remain in the shadows, so I got a chance to have a personal interview with Jehovah. So there is zero doubt God exists and he's the same God of Moses and the Bible. In the meantime, I don't blame those who are atheists or agnostics, especially based on the comparisons they make. For instance, instead of building something simple like an ant hill that the wind also builds, why not use the example of a beehive and see how soon the wind will build a beehive with lots of honey in it. The comb cells are hexagons which is a specific shape and a very expedient dimension for use of space. So yes, I'm one of those Christians who look out and see the complexity of the world and know that evolution and atheism are profoundly ignorant concepts. Plus I have direct proof of God so there's no way I could become an agnostic now. Scientific deception are for those who love darkness and want to be deceived, in which case, God gives them plenty of rope to hang themselves if they want. Instead of dealing with something simplistic like an ant hill, try explaining how the wind accidentally created the ant itself. Does a random wind create living things? Thanks for sharing your experience. Regardless, you were affected by your college education and were convinced to doubt God. I stuck with God and God proved himself to me. But I wonder if going to college would have affected me as it did you? I think, not likely. That's because I wouldn't believe in evolution even if there was not God. It's just too stupid for me to imagine. LS
-
126
A simple way to tell God probably doesn't exist
by poor places inwhen's the last time you prayed to god?
did he respond?
i prayed to him for years and years and received no response.
-
-
Larsinger58
Like I've said, God acknowledges Satan's propaganda is well presented and strong, so to save the elect from being distracted, he just appears to them personally, or via holy spirit, etc. That way, they know directly God exists and all those "scientific" questions remain just that. They don't impact on their dismissal of the reality of God as would someone who only has the scientific stuff to go by and deduce that increases the improbability of God. I know there's a god for a fact due to personal experience, so I'm out of the "guessing" loop of wondering if God exists or not, so likewise all the elect. God is real and he's the God of the Bible. LS
-
59
On my way to Cleveland for the 2011 "Let God's Kingdom Come" District Convention!
by MrFreeze inwell, i would be... if i were still going to meetings.
i live in pittsburgh, pa. for as long as i can remember we've always had our conventions in cleveland.
i think the year i was born was when we started going there.
-
-
Larsinger58
I attended for the first time in 18 years I think. My mother is wheel-chair dependent and her health ups and downs made it difficult to plan the trip with others in the congregation, which they usually do. Both my parents are active witnesses. They don't know about the net or that I'm competing for "Apostate of the Decade" here on JW.net (tee hee) Anyway, she's 84 and my dad is 85 so them driving on their own would have driven me crazy with worry, so against my usual preferences I offered to drive them if they got me my own motel room. I wasn't planning on attending the meetings but the motel was too far to really go back and forth so I ended up attending and was surprised how much I actually enjoyed it. I'll write about the experience separately. I used to rail at the false teachings but now I just shrug at them. Christ puts "new wine" into new wineskins but not "old wineskins" so I consider the false teachings "out of date" rather than false and some of those details don't matter to the masses anyway. The sound was great and they've got it where you don't really get bored, with lots of symposiums, interspersed with experiences and two dramas plus lots of new releases. No talk is over 45 minutes and the average is about 20 minutes, so the meetings moved right along. LS
-
126
A simple way to tell God probably doesn't exist
by poor places inwhen's the last time you prayed to god?
did he respond?
i prayed to him for years and years and received no response.
-
-
Larsinger58
All probably sounds good unless you've seen and spoken with God personally as I have or have had some direct or indirect connection via holy spirit as do the "elect" (i.e. 1,440,000 king-priests to rule with Christ for 1000 years soon). In that case, we have direct proof God exists and that he is the God of the Bible. So we're out of the "guessing" loop as far as the existence of God goes. It's a little different for the "anointed" at this point in time, that is, post 1947. Jehovah and Christ are more active now. LS
-
14
539 BCE and an astronomical tablet
by Doug Mason inpage 453 of the wtss book, insight on the scriptures says that the eclipse records for the 7th year of cambyses can be used to calculate 539 bce for the fall of babylon.. to do this, the chronology article refers to j. n. strassmaier, f. x. kugler, t. oppolzer, and o. gingerich.. what did those people actually write?.
how does the wts manage to travel from the 7th year of cambyses to the date of the fall of babylon?.
http://www.jwstudies.com/539_bce_and_an_astronomical_tablet.pdf.
-
-
Larsinger58
DOUG NOTES: First, thanks, Doug, for this wonderful reference. Here are your research notes which I think will improve your article: 1. You hit the nail on the head as does COJ that the WTS uses the SK400 to help date the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, but dismisses the VAT4956 as accurate. Total hypocrisy. My criticism here for your article is that both of these texts are never mentioned to be from the Seleucid Period and thus are "copies" of original astronomical information. The WTS, therefore, correctly can dismiss the VAT4956 as fraudulent history though the astronomy is correct, since this is a "copy" and thus likely revised historical text. The dismissability relates to the "historical" information and not the astronomical information. Of course, again, if you can dismiss the VAT4956 for being a "copy/revision" text, the same doubly applies to the SK400 which was written after the VAT4956!! So the "hypocritical" application stands. Except, of course, neither can be used for preemptive dating for any other references since they are "copies" and thus presumed from the beginning to be likely revised texts. 2. You emphasize how the WTS relies on secular sources to match these two eclipses in the SK400. Again, you emphasize and suggest they did not check these references but relied on the application of the secular source. This is not entirely accurate. If you can, get a copy of the "Aid To Bible Understanding" where this eclipse reference first appears. They revised their statement to defer to the secular source in the "Insight" book. But they apparently checked these eclipses themselves when this first appeared in the "Aid" book because for the second eclipse they indicate it "apparently" was a match for the Tebet eclipse. So they did look it up! Here is your quote: "Insight thus completely relies on the computations made by the expert secular sources. Using the same experts, whose methods have been shown to be accepted by Insight, enables the other astronomical tablets to be dated." This is a cop-out which is a propaganda technique. That is, when forcing a scholar into a corner which he doesn't want to go on record about, or doesn't want to contradict since it would seem he's an idiot, he will often claim this is not his area of expertise and refer you to someone who has written a book on the topic, thus sending you on a wild goose chase without agreeing or disagreeing with you. So that's what we are seeing in the "Aid" reference versus the "Insight" reference. The WTS is having you follow the secular reference, which is not a critical reference, to make you presume there is a match, when there is not. What do I mean? 3. As you stated, this first ecilpse on Tammuz 14 is extremely rare because it has a second reference in Ptolemy. The problem is, Ptolemy gives you the precise time of this eclipse, which is one hour before midnight. That means we can equivocate the specific time in the SK400 of two and a half double hours, which is 3 hours and 20 minutes. Thus 3 hours and 20 minutes after "night" (not "sunset"!) should equal to within 4 minutes of 11 p.m. That is, 11 p.m. is one hour before midnight for those who are not following. Turns out that is precisely correct when "night" begins a new division of the night which is 32 minutes after sunset. As you note, calculations are accurate to within 4 minutes. Sunset occurs at 7:09 on Tammuz 14. You then add 32 minutes to the beginning of "night" to get 7:41 p.m. To that you add 3:20 which gives you 10:61, which is 11:01 p.m. That is within 4 minutes of 11 p.m. which is "one hour before midnight." This introduces 2 problems, which is why Stephenson abandoned any comparison. Problem #1: That is, he obviously did the comparison and since it totally didn't work, he made the presumption this was a "predicted" eclipse event, since the time did not match the current canon. That is, Ptolemy gives you the precise hour this eclipse should have occurred over Babylon, which is one hour before midnight. Again, the SK400 matches that precise time as well. But the currently adjusted canon, based on eclipse choices by the scholars shows this eclipse occurring at 10:03 p.m. at Babylon, which is 57 minutes too early! So this great chance to use two references to align lunar times and earth times and thus earth's rotational position, is ignored for this reference! The time does not work. Problem #2: Because Ptolemy's canon for the eclipse in Tammuz teaches us precisely when to begin the division of "night" and "morning", which is 32 minutes after sunset or 32 minutes before sunrise, we can calculate precisely when the Tebet eclipse takes place. Tebet is month 10. Tammuz is month 4, so the eclipses are exactly 6 months apart. The Tebet eclipse is "5 hours before morning." Sunrise is at 7:19 which is 6:79 a.m. We subtract 32 minutes which gives us 6:47 a.m. 6:47 a.m. is when morning begins. 5 hours before 6:47 a.m. is 1:47 a.m. Thus you have another specific time of the day for this eclipse to happen. As I noted, the first eclipse is some 57 minutes too early. Well, the second eclipse compared to the first one is exactly 2:46 hours in interval difference. That is, the first eclipse is 1 minute after 11 p.m. The second one is 1:47 after midnight. So if we add an hour then substract 1 minute we get 2:46. That is, the interval between these two eclipses is 2 hours and 46 minutes. So it doesn't matter what time you want to assign the first eclipse to, the other one must be adjusted to the same timing and it must occur 2:46 minutes later. This brings up the second problem which is why Stephenson doesn't want to touch this problem. The eclipse interval is fixed by the SK400. So even when you use the canon time for this eclipse, the second eclipse in 523 BCE is 4:46 minutes apart! That is, there is a 2-hour error for this double eclipse! That's why the WTS in the "Aid" book said that the second eclipse "apparently" was a match, because it is some 2 hours off. Now one might think 57 minutes could be rounded off or something and they presume this error if they don't know what 3:20 "after night" is. But there is no excuse because Ptolemy tells us EXACTLY when this eclipse occurs, which is "one hour before midnight." So you have a clear contradiction. But it gets a bit more complicated. That's because as you noted, the Babylonians clearly understood lunar eclipses occur in similar patterns every 18 years. That is, every 18 years and 11 days later you have similar eclipses occurring. Thus when we compare the eclipses in 541 BCE, which is 18 years earlier than the eclipses in 523 BCE (523 + 18 = 541 BCE) we note something rather interesting, too interesting to be coincidental. And what is that? The eclipse interval for 541 BCE is EXACTLY 2:46! Therefore, the eclipse times and interval don't belong to "year 7" of Kambyses in 523 BCE at all, but to "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar II in 541 BCE. Thus the SK400, like the VAT4956, both diaries, actually are designed to link back to the original timeline. Original timeline? Yes. Per the Bible, 455 BCE should date the 1st of Cyrus. This is followed by 70 years of exile per Josephus, which began "when the people were removed off their land" (Ant. 11.1.1) which means at the time of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Add 70 years to 455 BCE and you get 525 BCE for the 23rd year of Neb2. Of course, since you are so smart, you realize that when year 23 falls in 525 BCE, then year 7 falls in 541 BCE, to match the SK400 eclipses, and year 37 falls in 511 BCE to match the VAT4956 double-dating! So at this point we're done. We understand WHY these DIARIES exist. They are politically correct to match to the revised chronology for the casual reader. But each text contains critical "errors" that the astronomers can't explain. That is, until you try and see if there is relevance to the true chronology, the Bible's chronology. When you do that, then the SK400 gives you a match for "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar II in 541 BCE and the VAT4956 "diary" gives you a match for its two "errors" in lines 3 and 14 to the true date of 511 BCE. SUMMARY: So in summary, the WTS' hypocrisy comes back to bite them in the arse! That is, they were correct in doubting the historical information in post-dated "copy" some 200+ years after the fact, which they do with the VAT4956. Only they should have equally applied that dismissal to the SK400, which they expect us to consider as reliable, even though they knew the 2nd eclipse being 2 hours off was hardly a match. Instead of drawing attention to that fact by stating "apparently" this is accurate as they do in the "Aid" book, in the "Insight" they refer you to a secular reference which simply gives you the date for this eclipse, without a match for the specific time. That is, in 523 BCE, on Tammuz 14, there was a 50% partial eclipse. The same occurred in 541 BCE. On Tebet 14 in 523 BCE, there was a total eclipse, which also occurred 18 years earlier in 541 BCE. But the TIME of both eclipses are specific. The precise eclipse times don't match the current canon times, which is very subjective and flexible. However, the eclipse interval is not flexible. The interval is 2:46 (2 hours 46 minutes) apart. So the creators of the SK400 were being very clever, which was to give you the precise times of these two eclipses so that there is a cryptic reference to 541 BCE, year 7 of Neb2, in a text dated to "year 7" of Kambyses for other references. Apparently, the "year 9" reference is a clue to solving the complex reference once you realize it belongs to the reign of Cyrus, that is, another king. Thus unlike the VAT4956 which is a reference to two different years for year 37 of the same king, Nebuchadnezzar, to solve the "year 7" reference in the SK400, you need to substitute a second king, in this case, Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year in 541 BCE for Kambyses' 7th year in 523 BCE. The "year 9" reference which is spurious for Kambyses and for 521 BC, does match "year 9" of Cyrus. So you have a context of multiple kings in reference in this text so substituting Nebuchadnezzar II for Kambyses is within the context of more than one king's rule in this one text. It's quite clever! Furthermore, it is likely that Jews created this text inspired by Jehovah for later reference. That is, the casual reader and non-astronomer would not recognize the technical astronomical mismatches in the texts. Astronomers who noted the mismatch would presume it was a "scribal error" and that would be the end of it. But on later critical examination, once the Biblical timeline became apparent for comparison, then you get the matches for both texts to the original dating. Another hint these are "safety texts" (i.e. texts that preserve or keep safe the original chronology) is the fact that you have up to 5 extant copies or fragments of the SK400! Thus this text which hides clues to the original chronology were copied multiple times. But why? Obviously to increase the odds of survival! Even so the WTS loses here! They want to dismiss the VAT4956 and keep the SK400 when both are "copies/revisions" from the same Seleucid Period. But COJ is also hypocritical here. He doesn't put the SK400 in the same category as the VAT4956 which he calls the "most important" astronomical text from the NB Period! So COJ, like the WTS, cherry picks his own favorite texts. He thus notes the hypocrisy of the WTS in using the SK400 vs. the VAT4956, but at the same time doesn't want to throw any light on the SK400 being an inferior text reference because of the complicated errors for this text, especially since you have the rare confirmation of precisely when the eclipse must occur, which is "one hour before midnight" per Ptolemy, which is not matched by the eclipse times. So between the SK400, VAT4956 and Ptolemy you have a can of worms, which is why Stephenson and others don't want to include it as a good reference to dating the NB Period because all it does is points to revisionism during the Seleucid Period, something the British Museum would rather keep as their own dirty little secret. BIBLE'S TRUE TIMELINE VINDICATED BY SK400 AND VAT4956: But regardless of when or where the dust settles for these controversial eclipses, you have a strong absolute alternative reference to dating the NB Period. That is, you can't just decide to date it any time you want to once you dismiss the VAT4956 and the SK400. You have to first make comparisons for the matched astronomical references of 541 BCE for the SK400 year 7 of Neb2, and 511 BCE for year 37 of Neb2, both matching the same timeline for Neb2. Then that is compared to the Biblical dating of year 23 of Neb2 in 525 BCE based on 455 BCE as the 1st of Cyrus. Of course, that gives you the same dating. So the SK400 and the VAT4956 are secular references that independently date and confirm the Bible's own dating. This is bad news for JWs who need 607 BCE to mark the fall of Jerusalem so they can validate 1914 as the year of the 2nd coming. But once you correct the timeline, using these and several other eclipse adjustments, Jerusalem falls in 529 BCE which dates the second coming 2520 years later to 1992. 1992 is also the "1335 days" date for the second coming because 1947 ends the gentile times and begins the 70th jubilee, which ends the 1290 days. The messiah arrives to fulfill the 1335 days, which is 45 years later and thus 1992. 1290 + 45 = 1335 1947 + 45 = 1992 So even if some does not agree with this interpretation, it still is nice to have secular sources that point to the original timeline and that prove the original timeline was, indeed, distorted for the NB through Greco-Persian Period some 57-82 years at certain points. So, Doug, thanks again for your reference. This is a good focus but a can of worms. Finally, I don't know if you know this, but Prof. Robert Newton who wrote, "Crimes of Claudius Ptolemy" who totally dismisses Ptolemy's canon references and calls him a "fraud" does claim there are two texts apart from Ptolemy that can be used to date the the NB Period. Those two exceptional texts are none other than the SK400 and the VAT4956. Little did he know of their cryptic references to a second timeline. So at the end of the day, dismissing Ptolemy's references entirely and converting the SK400 and VAT4956 to the correct timeline, it's just a matter of academic incompetence at this point not to recognize the true timeline. But if you can't seem to do so, it still will not change those who believe the Bible's own chronology must date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE based on the baptism of Christ in 29 CE as does Martin Anstey in his "Romance of Bible Chronology." Anstey, unlike the WTS, when faced with a contradiction between the Bible and secular sources, dismissed the secular sources are unreliable. The WTS tried to pussyfoot around and use the secular sources they needed for 1914 but dismissed the others. Now that has come back to bite them. Only now, both the SK400 and the VAT4956 can be used as independent references to date the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II which turns out to be the precise dating the Bible provides. Thanks, Doug, again, for your reference!! LS
-
14
539 BCE and an astronomical tablet
by Doug Mason inpage 453 of the wtss book, insight on the scriptures says that the eclipse records for the 7th year of cambyses can be used to calculate 539 bce for the fall of babylon.. to do this, the chronology article refers to j. n. strassmaier, f. x. kugler, t. oppolzer, and o. gingerich.. what did those people actually write?.
how does the wts manage to travel from the 7th year of cambyses to the date of the fall of babylon?.
http://www.jwstudies.com/539_bce_and_an_astronomical_tablet.pdf.
-
-
Larsinger58
Thanks, Doug. Don't worry about any dart board with your picture on it! They like you! You're a popular life-size cutout they use for target practice on their gun range. But I wouldn't take that personally, JWs are not great shots! (tee hee) All kidding aside, CO Jonsson discusses the SK400 text you mention and apparently it is considered a very confusing text. My first encounter with debating COJ was regarding this very text. I had pointed out that it was fraudulent because it referenced a "9th year" for Kambyses. COJ said I was lying stating Kambyses didn't rule 9 years, only 8 at the most; which is true. But that didn't mean the text didn't contain a 9th year reference. It was curious he took that position since I quoted the entire text in my post which gave the "9th year" reference. Later on when I ran into COJ in discussions at one of the XJW discussion boards, he admitted to his "mistake" in saying there was no "9th year" reference in the text. He swears it was a "mistake." Of course, he was speaking as an expert and contradicting me, making the false claim I was lying about any "9th year reference." The problem I saw with this was, indeed, if he were such an "expert" he would have known already there was a "9th year" reference and had some explanation for it. Further investigation with astronomical programs showed the reference to the "9th year" where Mars was behind Leo on a certain day of the month, actually matched the 9th year of Cyrus in 530 BCE. Of course, as everyone must know by now, much like the VAT4956 that double-dates year 37 of Neb2 to 511 BCE, two lunar eclipse references for the same year match 541 BCE but are a mismatch for 523 BCE. With the context of the "9th year" of Cyrus in the text, when we apply the 541 BCE context of "year 7" to some other potential Neo-Babylonian or Persian kings, we get a relevant match for Neb2. That is, when you date year 7 of Neb2 to 541 BCE, then his 37th years falls in 511 BCE, just matching the VAT4956. So it is another text with apparent cryptic references to what must have the the original timeline. In the meantime, when you date year 541 BCE to year 7 of Neb2, then the year of the last deportation falls in 525 BCE, which is followed by 70 years of exile per Josephus ending the 1st of Cyrus. Thus that dating would date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, the strict Biblical date for that event. Thus now the VAT4956 and SK400 together support the Bible's timeline which dates year 1 of Cyrus to 455 BCE! As with the VAT4955, it is not those astronomical observations that match the current timeline of 523 BCE for year 7 of Kambyses, but those "errors" in the text that link to another date, in this case, year 7 of Neb2 matched to 541 BCE. Doug, while you're here, do you have a comment on "year 9" of Kambyses in the text? Did you realize there was a "year 9" reference in the text? Thanks. LS P.S. I'll comment on your download if I see anything of note. Thanks for the reference!!!