R. Furuli, Vol. 2 Chronology Book and the Kandalanu Saturn Tablet

by AnnOMaly 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Gerber analyzed 101 Babylonian New Year's dates between 748 and 539 BCE.

  The data shows that there was a shift in the dates of the Babylonian New Year. In the 8th century, it was frequently celebrated before the vernal equinox; in fact, Gerber says that the "commonly held view" is that "the aimed-for beginning of the Babylonian year in the eighth century fell about two weeks before vernal equinox."

  There was a shift to roughly ten days after the equinox during the reign of Nabopolassar, but a look at the charts shows that there were still many years when it was celebrated before the equinox right through the entire neo-Babylonian era.

  That's a valuable piece of information. Thanks for posting that, Alleymom.

  JCanon

  I often quote this one from Wikipedia,

  I'm hoping you'll stop now. It may be true that in later times the Babylonians began their new years at or after the vernal equinox, but as Alleymom has shown, that wasn't so in earlier times.

  Here is the actual text descriptions, which you can see from the graphics fit the dates for the 5th but not the month. The discrepancy suggests the Saturn text is fraudulent and cryptically misdated by one month for some reason.

  The discrepancy suggests that you cannot have two different positions for Saturn allocated to the same Julian date - your error rather than the tablet's.

  Given the above information from God's only true representatives on earth, I would recommend that you quit trying to find fault with what this man has written, recognize your inferior cranial capacities and get back to things best suited to the female mind, providing food and sex for your mates.

  ROFL @ hillary_step!

  Thank you for the wise and loving counsel. I shall scurry back to the kitchen and start making cupcakes immediately!
• 

  JCanon

  The discrepancy suggests that you cannot have two different positions for Saturn allocated to the same Julian date - your error rather than the tablet's.

  The dates in the tablet are a MONTH OFF, astronomically speaking.

  It's like the "error" in the VAT4956, line 18. The tablet was broken off but basically identified a planet "immediately below the Bright Star Behind the Lion's foot." The context in this case was on the 15th, but even without that date, there would be only one time when this planetary and lunar coordination would take place. It's like saying the Moon was "4 cubits" below a certain star. That only happen within a few hours, period. So there's little flexibility.

  Same with the Saturn text. Two positions for Saturn are described within the internval of a month, the first month it is behind the "Furrow" of Virgo and the second time it is halfway BETWEEN Virgo (furrow ends Virgo) and Libra. That is consistent with specific dates. Those dates match month 7 and 8, but not month 6 and 7 as it appears in the text. There is an "error" therefore, in the text. Period. You just can't give a date and then describe the location of a planet in the wrong place. But since we already know the dating is suspect and there is so much other hanky panky going on with all these texts anyway, it's just up for grabs why the dating is off. I don't know precisely why it might be off, but it could be counter-intelligence sabbotage by those wanting to protect the original chronology.

  The Jews do that all the time. Like publishing the rabbinical date of 352 BCE for year 6 of Darius I, the year the temple was completed. NOBODY, even the Jews believes that ridiculous date that close to the Greek takeover of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. On the other hand, the original date for this event in 534 BCE is exactly 82 years later than the revised date of 516 BCE. In turn, 352 BCE is exactly 82 years after 534 BCE? Connection? Possibly. We can't rule it out. No more than we can absolutely rule out his subtle mismatch by one month of Saturn's position as a clue of the revision. Keep in mind that lots of people knew about the revisions. This was a conspiracy to fool the Greeks. They loved the secret. Insiders who knew the truth and recognized the truth right in front of the faces of the "uninitiated". They are LAUGHING at those who take this seriously but like to tease them with an apparent "error" like this. It's sort of an "in your face, just how smart are you?" kind of thing, like the seeing eye pyramid right there on the dollar bill. It's there. You see it. You know its from the Freemasons. But what else does it tell you?

  Further an astronomer knows this is an unlikely "mistake." When redating astronical texts it's just a matter of reassigning the historical information. The astronomical information is never revised. So the fact that the position for Saturn and the dates for this event don't match suggest a deliberate deception or sign of a revision, or like I said, potential "sabbotage". The fact that the copyists would change the dating hints to revisionism. It's indirect but still there. It cripples this text as a valid chronological reference.

  Watch this: I know the dates are one month off. Therefore will I accept it as a valid reference? Hell no! It's phony and fraudulent. Now I'm an AMATEUR and I know that much. What does that say about everybody else? I tried putting my hands over my ears so I couldn't hear arguments about the Saturn text but I was laughing to hard and had to catch myself as I fell to the floor....

  JCanon
• 

  AnnOMaly

  The dates in the tablet are a MONTH OFF, astronomically speaking.

  a) Have you taken into account the 2nd Ululu?

  b) Have you taken into account that you can't have 2 different positions of Saturn on the same Julian date, irrespective of what Babylonian months it might correspond to?

  c) Have you taken into account that, while I think you are likeable, I also think you are crazier than a box of frogs?
• 

  JCanon

  OOOPS! My mistake! THANKS. Actually, I take that back, since I'm "perfukt" my computer must have made that mistake. Yeah, blame it on the computer, always!

  Here's the corrected graphic, as you likely figured out, should have been OCT 5 not NOV 5....

  Thanks, again. Embarrassing, but at least somebody actually noticed! So I'm pleased!

  JCanon
• 

  JCanon

  Hi Ann! Thanks again!!!

  a) Have you taken into account the 2nd Ululu?

  Actually, I had, only in passing. Not sure if there is a record on that. I think there might be, it's just 640. If so that would make sense. If the previous year was a 2nd Ululu that wold explain everything. It's possible that there is actually an opinion or record of that. I think the 2nd Ululu was introduced as the last intercalary month in the 19-year cycle, so it happened every 19 years. I'll do a little searching to see if there is something specific for 641 BCE, or in fact, if we can calculate empirically back from the NB era 2nd Ululu's to see if we get a match. I think it's probable, and preferable than all I have otherwise is a counter-intelligence reference. The Babylonians, even the revisionists, would not have made this kind of mistake. Maybe, in fact, the Saturn text in itself is a direct reference that 641 was a 2nd Ululu year! I'll see what I can come up for comparison, not that anything is definitive, sometimes there were exceptions. But YES, now that you've brought that it, it would explain the apparent "discrepancy" which might not be a discrepancy! Thanks.

  b) Have you taken into account that you can't have 2 different positions of Saturn on the same Julian date, irrespective of what Babylonian months it might correspond to?

  Right! Again, OOPS! That has been corrected. A "typo" my computer made. I typed "OCT" and the computer typed "NOV" -- Dohhhhh! (smile) Thanks. Should be OCT 5 for the earlier position of Saturn immediately behind the "furrow". Just for YOU, the graphics were generated by "Skymap" but "Redshift" shows it a little more realistically so I'll post three months in a row so you can see the progression of Saturn through Virgo. I think it will be an apparent match for the dates indicated. Of course, if there is a 2nd Ululu implied here, or just a year where the months were extremely late, then that kills the "conspiracy" theory. Which is fine. That was a "stretch" even for me. Usually cryptic references lead to some other confirmation of the original. So it's not that cryptic. Even the SK400, where "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar in 541 BCE is substituted for "year 7" of Kambyses in 523 BCE, since it is not a simple swap-out like in the VAT4956 where just one king is involved, the SK400 includes a "year 9" reference for Kambyses. Of course, Kambyses did not rule into year 9. But you can see how they just put an apparent MISTAKE in the text that makes no sense? But if you check out "year 9" for other kings, the astronomical reference matches the position of Mars in year 9 of Cyrus! So, you see, the text is like a puzzle. Even though it is apparent you solve the puzzle by replacing year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar to 541 BCE, just as a little "reasurrance" two kings are involved, they include the Year-9 Cyrus reference, sort of to confirm you need to substitute a second king to solve the reference. But in a way, now that I mentioned the Year-9 reference, the mistake or "error" is a hint that something is amiss or fabricated, that the casual observer might not notice, but that an astronomer would notice. It's like the seeing-eye pyramid on the dollar bill. It's THERE, not doing anything, but does it really belong there? It's right in your face, but invisible at the same time.

  c) Have you taken into account that, while I think you are likeable, I also think you are crazier than a box of frogs?

  ROFL! Well I certainly like you a lot. You cut down on my embarrassment days by pointing out that error. As much as I worked with these graphics I don't know why I didn't notice the error. Thanks. And fine if you think I'm crazy, but see, I'm less "crazy" now if I think Saturn was in both positions on the same date! I tend to seem less "crazy", I think, the more information you get from me. We'll have to see!!

  I love astronomy and think it's fascinating, and the graphics are easy to do, but I think you'll enjoy them!

  Thanks, again.

  JCanon

  ADDENDUM: Okay I'm back. That was quick! Here are the Redshift images that show the position of Saturn for three consecutive months on the 5th of each month in 640 BCE: September, October and November. The October and November references for Saturn in relation to the "furroow" when the furrow is actually the bottom of the furrow formed by alpha-Virginis and kappa-Virginis, Saturn is just "behind" the actual "furrow" meaning just behind kappa-Virginis which forms the end of the furrow. In that case in the next month, Saturn appears between Libra and the furrow of Virgo. This is clearly more representative than when Saturn is within the "furrow" the previous month of September.

  The issue here is, using normal calculations month 7 would be September 5th and month 8 would be October 5th. But actually the text is describing October and November. Now as you mentioned, if there was a 2nd Ululu the year before it's possible that is why the months would be unusually late this year, which is a possible explanation. If that is not clearly the case though or otherwise contraindicated, then the possibility of a deliberate cryptic misdating might have to be considered. ??

  Here are the graphics. This time I included the official computer generated time in the upper left corner, though not sure if it is readable. It is possible to misdate sometimes. (smile)

  Of course, getting back to Furuli, this probably would not be an issue, even if Furuli and Johnsson dated these in the wrong months. That's because the year is the primary reference and that would not change. BUT, if Furuli wants to redate this text and claims specific mismatch of position for Saturn, then the specific month might be an issue. Again, the Saturn text could be used to simply confirm the 7th and 8th months fell in October and November this, reflecting the calendar this year. It still would be dismissible as a revised text because it originates from the Seleucid Period. However, after checking other records if it is clear from other references when the year began and there is a mismatch, we'd have to consider what that might mean. If anyone has a specific reference with the intercalary years for 641 and 640 BCE that would be helpful. THANKS! Here are the graphics. ENJOY!
• 

  JCanon

  Here's some detail on the 2nd Ululu:

  The intercalary month was inserted either after Ululu or Addaru, and it was simply called Second Ululu, or Second Addaru. There is some evidence that by the reign of Nabonassar (747 BCE) Babylonian astronomers had discovered the Metonic 19-year cycle, but until the 4th century BCE, there is no evidence that a 19-year cycle was used to assign fixed intercalary years within the cycle. In its fully developed form, years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 19 had a second Addaru, and year 17 had a second Ululu.'

  http://www.polysyllabic.com/calhistory/earlier/babylonian

  JCanon
• 

  JCanon

  Hi Ann:

  a) Have you taken into account the 2nd Ululu?

  It is possible that Ptolemy's Canon mentions an eclipse in 641 BCE. If the month is provided we can know for sure the alignment of the months for this year. Ptolemy's canon covers this period. I couldn't find his canon online anywhere.

  JCanon
• 

  JCanon

  a) Have you taken into account the 2nd Ululu?

  Hi Ann:

  YES. Now I have.

  It turns out a 2nd Ululu occurred in the following years:

  621, 616, 611, 607, 603, 600, 598 and 596 BCE. Thus it appears during these years, which is during the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, 2nd Ululu was the default intercalary month many times, and alternated with 2nd Adarru.

  Per the above dates, month 7, Tashiritu (Tishri) the following year fell on the following dates:

  BCE

  620 9/22

  615 9/28

  610 10/2

  606 9/19

  602 10/4

  599 10/1

  597 10/9

  595 10/16

  Thuis progress is being made! As you can see from 599 BCE, sometimes the 7th month did fall on October 1 and it wasn't unusual to fall even later than that. In 640 BCE the new moon fell on April 7th, in 599 BCE on April 6th, so the years would be similar and the 7th month falls in the same place circa 10/1.

  Therefore, there is no mismatch for the month. No conspiracy (whew!) . The only thing that is significant here is that the application that the "furrow" is alpha-Virginis is incorrect. "Behind the Furrow" is more specific a reference to kappa-Virginis which ends the furrow. It doesn't mean that in other texts the reference doesn't work for alpha-Virginis as the "furrow" but in this case it is clear the actual diagramatic furrow and not the star is in reference here. So at least I got that straight.

  Thanks to you, I'm "refined":

  1. No "conspiracy" theory concepts due to mal aligned months. My miscalculation.

  2. Perfect harmony with the reference where the "furrow" is a poor reference to the single star alpha-Virginis, but as the graphics show, should be the diagramatic "furrow" made up by alpha and kappa-Virginis, with specifically Saturn in the 7th month, Day 5 precisely being behind kappa-Virginis for the Saturn text reference.

  In conclusion, this text is one of many revised documents from the Seleucid Period (i.e. the writing style dates it to sometime in the late Persian Period or after, likely the Seleucid Period), which, of course, the VAT4956 dismisses as fraudulent. How so? Because the VAT4956 primary references reflect the same chronology, that is, year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar falling in 568BCE matches year 8 of Kalanadu falling in 640BCE. But since it includes 511 BCE as a cryptic reference to the original chronology, that exactly matches the Biblical dating, it means that the Saturn text dating is fraudulent and just an attempt to create another astronomical text realigned to the revised chronology.

  So, again, thanks. I'll have less of my foot in my mouth when discussing this text if it comes up!

  JCanon
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I knew it was going to be a mistake giving you attention.

  You're welcome about the October/November thing.

  Actually, I had, only in passing. Not sure if there is a record on that. I think there might be, it's just 640. If so that would make sense.

  The Saturn tablet says there was one.

  Should be OCT 5 for the earlier position of Saturn immediately behind the "furrow".

  October 7 for VII.5; November 6 for VIII.5. And you mustn't forget that the whole purpose of the tablet was to list first and last visibilities so the Sun wouldn't be that far away from Saturn (but just far enough away that sunlight wouldn't drown out its visibility when rising before the sun or setting after it). If the Sun doesn't figure in your sky pictures, they are irrelevant. And if you're trying to date the Saturn tablet's year 8 to 599, FORGET IT! It doesn't work.
• 

  JCanon

  I knew it was going to be a mistake giving you attention.

  I'm not. I've always dreamed of having an assistant. Say, um, you wouldn't happen to....(never mind!)

  October 7 for VII.5; November 6 for VIII.5. And you mustn't forget that the whole purpose of the tablet was to list first and last visibilities so the Sun wouldn't be that far away from Saturn (but just far enough away that sunlight wouldn't drown out its visibility when rising before the sun or setting after it). If the Sun doesn't figure in your sky pictures, they are irrelevant. And if you're trying to date the Saturn tablet's year 8 to 599, FORGET IT! It doesn't work.

  I'll do the graphics for your dates. Astronomy programs and most canons will vary about a day or so, especially with lots of these calculations being done before electronic programs which are more accurate and the fact that it was always a toss-up of one day as far when the month began. In fact, it's rather a joke that scholars presume there was so much anxiety over determining visibility of the first new moon crescent when in fact by practical application there was more precision in simply observing the distance of the moon from the sun on the second day when there was clear visibility. Some ancient texts, including the VAT496 show the first day of the month occurring after 10 hours of the new moon, rather than only after 18 hours when direct visibility is generally presumed. Further, only certain months of the year were left to that visible calculation with other months automatically assigned 29 or 30 days.

  As far as showing the sun in the graphics in relation to Saturn, I'll widen out so that the position of the sun can be observed and I'll use your specific dates. Thanks for the confirmation!

  As far as trying to move this to 599, I think you missed my point. I was just using that year as one where the 1st of month VII fell near the 1st of October as it would have in 640 BCE to demonstrate the common occurrence of the month being dated at that time, and thus it would not be exceptional. So definitely not. 599 was just a similar lunar cycle to 640 BCE with no relation to Saturn whatsoever.

  Thanks again for the specific dating. I'll swap out the graphics.

  JCanon

  ADDENDUM:

  Here are the graphics for your improved dates for the Saturn positions: 10/07 and 11/06