Wow! A few people are following this and discussing this. Great. Thanks for quoting COJ where he actually sort of agrees that on face value, it would seem that Cyrus fulfills the 70 weeks prophecy!
If we "just stick to the Bible," it seems to point to the Persian king Cyrus. At Isaiah 44:28 Jehovah "saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid" (ASV). And further, in chapter 45, verse 13: "I myself have roused up someone in righteousness [Cyrus], and all his ways I shall straighten out. He is the one that will build my city, and those of mine in exile he will let go, not for a price nor for bribery" (NW).
Then COJ shows all the secular evidence that contradicts this, including the VAT4956. But... Josephus himself interprets the 70 years for the Jews and thus the Bible. The Jews ought to understand their own writings. Josephus clearly dates the 70 years in connection with those last deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible confirms a deportation in year 23 as well! (Jer. 52:30) This is the period of seventy years when the entire land lay completely desolate.
Now some claim this is not supported by archaeology. But the history of Ashkelon, one of the cities that was to be destroyed has confirmed it was destroyed by the Babylonians and then rebuilt by the Persians after a period of 70-80 years! Not every city can give a historical record of what happens, but Ashkelon does. So that is one thing that supports the Bible.
NEVER A JEW SAID: I have no idea about Larsinger claims regarding VAT4956, however I can assure with only .00001% of doubt that VAT 4956 corresponds to year 568/567 BCE and no other year. I have personally spent weeks doing the research using an astronomical program. I found about 18 planetary matches (this alone nails it to 568/567), 7 time interval matches (lunat threes) and 10 lunar position matches, the solstice and a lunar eclipse. Only two lunar positions don't match. I believe those are the ones that Lars and the WT use to make their arguments for their own years. The problem is that they ignore all the other observations (more than 30).
Never. The issue with the VAT4956 is not those observations that match 568 BCE. Indeed, they do. The question is over those references, already noted by the scholars that don't. That is: Line 3 and Line 14. Now these are passed off as "scribal errors" at first, but the positions of the moon on these specific dates belong to the same lunar cycle and match 511 BCE. NOW. Is this a huge coincidence, or are the creators of the VAT4956 playing games with us? At this point, we ask what on earth is the significance of 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II? If this is just an error, then there should be no relevant significance at all. But guess what? When you use the Bible to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then add in the 70 years of desolation where the land must pay back its sabbaths, dated per Josephus to year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, when the people went off their land, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. That means year 37 falls in 511 BCE. OOPS! Yet another coincidence? Hardly.
What I am claiming about the VAT4956 is that it was created as a diary, with lots and lots of references matched to 568 BCE so that it would be accepted and would survive. The "errors" were carefully placed in this text when the Moon passed by sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis which is an excellent measuring place in the zodiac. In this way, they were able to reference back to what must have been the original timeline. So 511 BCE per the VAT4956 would be the date to compare to the Bible's timeline, not 568 BCE. It would, indeed be a threat, but guess what? The Bible also dates year 37 to 511 BCE.
So we have a confirmation here. At least at this point, this is enough reason to investigate whether there was revisionism during the NB or Persian Periods. But nobody is doing that. But guess what happens when you do? You get situations like "The Delian Problem." This is a math problem that Plato was supposedly consulted to solve in the 2nd year of the PPW in 430 BCE. Problem is, Plato was not born until 428 BCE! So right now, he is being consulted some 2 years before his birth. When we re-date the PPW to 403 BCE, however, which we can do several ways, then Plato is 25 years of age. So note the effect of removing these years from the Greco-Persian Period! You go from something that doesn't work, something clearly the result of revisionism to something that makes sense.
So the bottom line is, there is now secular evidence in place that also supports that year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II actually occurred in 511 BCE, and when you face removing 82 fake years from the Persian Period, it is quick and easy!
So am I trying to convince YOU of this? No. The elect read all this and they would have sided with the Bible anyway, dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. But now they don't have to. The VAT4956 proves that 568 BCE was a fabricated date and all the history we now see are "copies" or revised inscriptions to try to protect the identity of Xerxes who was a Greek target for assasination.
Or look what happens when you actually look at the archaeology. Per the Bible at Ezra 6:14,15 it says that Darius I only ruled for six years and "Artaxerxes" followed him on the throne and finished the temple. This is thus the "accession year" of Artaxerxes, which was the secondary name for Xerxes. What does Persepolis show us? It shows us that Darius started that comound in his 4th year and barely finished one building, his own palace. Meanwhile, in Babylon, we have documents that show that a palace for the king's son was completed in just two years! So if you didn't know anything about Greek history or the length of certain rulerships, the archaeology would suggest that this king with his co-ruler, Xerxes, died early in his rule, likely his 6th year if his palace only took two years to build. See? Archaeology confirms, not contradicts the false timeline.
Plus, what am I claiming here? A major conspiracy? Look how many claim the Bible was revised and is not accurate. So I ask, were the Jews the only ones who revised their records? What about the pagans? Let's look at some of their revisions. Of course, as I noted above, when we do, we find the contradictions like with Plato confirmed to be an adult when the PPW began but now is not born yet!
SO PLEASE! SPARE ME! I'm not someone who just decided to read the Watchtower and that's my only reference. I've looked at everything out there and checked everything and now I have the information to restore the inflated Persian timeline and the NB timeline and those restorations, based on secular sources, mind you, agree with the Bible's timeline when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus.
Now don't you think it is a little strange that Lines 3 and 14 can be matched to 511 BCE and that's the same year 37 the Bible is claiming was year 37 of Neb2? All the other 568 BCE matches was just to assure that this text would not be destroyed. It was a way to hide the truth "in plain sight", the best way to hide something! Two other "diaries" were created to do the same thing, including the SK400.
Now, I don't mind agreeing to disagree. If you think the VAT4956 confirms 568 BCE, then fine. But I'm using it to confirm 511 BCE. I actually have that option to do so. Remember, Lines 3 and 14 had long ago been noted to be non-matches to 568 BCE. So I'm not saying you can match this to either year. It is too specific. You can't guess the precise lunar location in two different months to the same year -- these had to be cpied from observations and they were deliberately inserted. Why? To preserve in a clever way some references to the original timeline, since all the other astronomical texts were to be destroyed.
So this is great. Now that we are discussing it, let's DISCUSS IT! Just how strong is the 82-year too long Persian Period? What does te archaeology really show? LOOK AT THIS VIDEO about the VAT4956 which also shows some key issues found at Persepolis that proves or supports that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king! Look at it and criticize it if you wish. But BE INFORMED!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIQ18QrbyYs
But also be informed there are other issues to consider. For instance, the fact that Nehemiah returned with Zerubbabel, probably around age 30 and lived down into the reign of Darius II. That means he would have to live close to 150 years of age! Scholars try to handle this by claiming the Nehemiah who returned with Zerubbabel is not the same Nehemiah that was cupbearer throughout the entire reign of Artaxerxes! Even so, Nehemiah was the cupbearer to Artaxerxes, which is the same role as the prime minister, and he is depicted in the bas reliefs at Persepolis, which you will see when you look at the above video! But where are the Biblical scholars and others who are identifying Nehemiah here with Artaxerxes? They don't exist! This is one of the weakest and most avoided issues in archaeology, Nehemiah as the cupbearer to Artaxerxes! But that's because it would prove he was also cupbearer during the reign of Darius I! This thus confirms the Bible.
Believe me. There is so much evidence now supporting the Bible's timeline (not the WTS' timeline!!!) that I don't have to look back. When you know something, you get to the point where if others don't get it, you really don't care. You figure, well, I guess everybody is not that bright after all.
COJ presents a great discussion and defense for his view, but he skips a lot of things and there is more to what is presented than is stated, including misrepresentations by translators as to what is in the text, thus misleading many and distracting from resolving why the VAT4956 was created in the first place. It fronts as a false astronomical text, but really it was designed to save some original references to the original chronology. This is confirmed, because the Bible dates year 37 to 511 BCE, just like the VAT4956! So it's wonderful! Thus COJ's blanket claim that all archaeologists and all archaeology and all the secular evidence supports this timeline is not accurate. It doesn't. The double-dating in the VAT4956 and the SK400 are issues that need to be discussed. Josephus' specific assignment of the 70 years in line with the last deportation needs to be dismissed aggressively, but you can't do that by claiming the 70 years for the Babylonian dominantion have to be rounded off to 66 years like COJ does. C'mon! This is desperation. It is desperation and it no longer works. His goal is for you not to look further! If you don't, you will think he has proven his point. If you look at everything though, all the issues, then his point is not as strong. But you also have to realize that the WTS used 539 BCE as a "pivotal date" in connection with their own NB timeline, but that date is part of the revised timeline! So as a witness, you have to be willing to accept the facts and realize the WTS is wrong about 539 BCE and wrong about 607 BCE. That's hard for many to do and they find it easy just to ignore all this and have faith in the WTS!
I put my faith in the Bible and allowed myself to see just what critical secular evidence contradicted the Bible. I tried to thus DISPROVE the Bible! What happened was just the opposite. I ended up proving the Bible true even more! It's fascinating stuff: ancient history and ancient lies!
Now it used to be nobody checked anything out. They were too busy or just took someone else's word for it. But at least now some people are checking this out for themselves. This is a bad trend for Carl Jonsson and the WTS! But it is a good trend for ME. Because the more facts you know, the more you will have conficence in the Bible's true timeline. I have LOTS of evidence waiting, but really, the VAT4956 is enough to confirm the true dating for the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II!
