How does the Society refute the 607/1914 discrepancy?

by ithinkisee 42 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JCanon

  Here's Josephus' statement regarding the 70 years from Antiquities 11:1:1

  1. In the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.

  Key points: 1. "removed out of their own land" is a reference to the last deportation (Jer. 52:30) 2. "fortold to them by Jeremiah" links the 70-year prophecy regarding "servitude", and 3. "servitude 70 years" refers to the people who were last deported; this is not about the desolation of the land this time. The Jews were still in exile 74 years after the fall of Jerusalem which is proven by Zechariah 1 and 7 where 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem falls in the 2nd year of Darius, and 70 years after the mourning for Gedaliah falls in the 4th year of Darius. Explanation? Simple. The Jews were still in exile under Darius the Mede, who was also the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. So we applaud the witnesses for trying to follow the Bible regarding the 70 years, but it doesn't help their 1914 dating as far as the fall of Jerusalem because they miscalculate what actually triggers the 70 years; it's not the fall of Jerusalem, but when the people were finally "removed out of their land" at the time of the last deportation. JC
• 

  JCanon

  When you see your friend make sure that you tell him that despite the weight of secular evidence scholars cannot agree on the following:

  1. A precise calender date for the Fall of Jerusalem

  2. A definite calender year for the beginning and end of the seventy years

  3. The length of the seventy years and whether it is literal or symbolic

  4. The end of the Assyrian World Power

  5. A king list for the Divided Monarchy

  6. The historical value or merit of Ptolemy's Canon

  7. A Absolute Date for securing pivotal dates for the Old Testament

  This confused state of affairs befalls those who prefer the secular evidence over the biblical evidence.

  scholar emeritus

  BA MA Studies in Religion

  Sorry, but I'm afraid I must agree with Scholar on this one!!! Except for a few specifics for Scholar. 1) The JEWS date the 70 years beginning at the time of the last deportation, which harmonizes with the Bible's reference to the 70 years, so it's not THAT indefinite when you use a Jewish reference in connection with the Bible. So I think it's not optional to date the 70 years except beginning in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. As far as the "absolute" chronology and all that business connected with 587BCE. The astronomy connected to the NB Period boiled down to two documents as far as Robert Newton was concerned who wrote "Crimes of Claudius Ptolemy" and completly dismissed his references as fraudulent but made reference to these two texts as reliable for dating the NB period. The SK400 dates year 23 of Kambyses to year 523BCE astronomically and the VAT4956 dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE. But that was not enough for me, so I got an astronomy program, Skymap, and after learning enough about astronomy reexamined these texts and found out that the acknowledged "errors" in the text could easily match up to other years and those other years matched up with the chronology by Martin Anstey who dates the 1st of Cyrus per the "70 weeks" prophecy to circa 455BCE (i.e. he dates it to 457BCE because he dated the baptism of Christ in 27 vs 29CE). So definitely scholar is right regarding the "evidence" from Babylonian sources being confusing. Plus the original translators of the VAT4956 actually lied about what's in the text in Line 18 which changes the meaning in other lines. So no way is an "informed" person about key astronomical texts in any way swayed by the 586BCE evidence; it makes a difference when you do your own research. I have my own take on how to date the NB per the Bible and the astronomical texts, but Scholar is right on the money about questioning these sources and pointing out the confusion and debate these texts still present. JC
• 

  JCanon

  They often use the standard apologist tactic of impugning the "secular minded scientists" then casting doubt upon the "incomplete" evidence finally offer an alternate spin on a fragment of unrelated data that can be made to work toward their conclusion.

  This my be true in some cases, but sometimes it is not. I think you can be "honest" and actually still doubt the evidence being presented to establish 587BCE as a legitimate date. Take the VAT4956. In Line 3 the translators (Sachs/Hunger) already note there is an "error for the 8th" when the text gives the position of the moon "one cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion". So why did they get this observation wrong? Okay, I can accept one error. But then if you examine the text yourself you find out Sachs/Hunger lie about what the text says in Line 18. This was the 15th of Sivan and they put the "moon" was "below the bright star behind the Lion's Foot". But the moon was clear in Capricorn on the 15th! It was in Virgo on the 5th though, Line 14. The fact that Lines 16 and 17 refer to an eclipse means that Sachs/Hunger should have known that the moon was in Capricorn and not Virgo. So why did they put "the moon" there? Okay. If this was a reference to the moon then to what planet. When you check with an astroprogram, guess what you find? Venus was the only planet in Virgo on the 15th and it was directly below beta-Virginis! That means this was really the reference, not the moon. Why did they lie? I'll tell you why. Because Line 18 DEFINES the star that is the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" as BETA-VIRGINIS. So? So that means the star in front of it, the Rear Foot of the Lion was the star that actually makes up the Rear Foot of Leo, IN LEO, sigma-Leonis. So? So that means that in Line 3 the reference is to the Moon being 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis and NOT BETA-VIRGINIS as Sachs/Hunger claim. So you see, Line 18 points out their misapplication to Line 3 to beta-Virginis when it should be Sigma-Leonis! Had they left Line 18 blank or put in Venus and tried to explain then it would have been obvious, placing the "moon" in that space was the least distracting because of the chances anybody would notice. But now that we have, now what? Line 3 still doesn't work for 568BCE. But now since the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" is correctly identified with beta-Virginis, Line 14 doesn't work either. It's another "error." But that's no problem because another famous astronomy professor, Otto Neugebaur already comments on line 14 not matching up with 568BCE. No problem. You have two errors. But there's more! You have two errors but O. Negebaur says it is a "day off", the same as Sachs/Hunger claim Line 3's reference is a "day off." That makes one suspicious. So we compare the lunar positions for Line 3 and 14 and guess what? They belong to the same lunar cycle! So what? So what it means that this is not an ERROR. This is intentional! You can't have someone guess the precise lunar locations for another year. But what does imply? What place two references matched to another lunar cycle in this text? Well that might be a mystery until you match the two "errors" to a specific year. And what year do you think that is? It's 511BCE!!!! Now get this. The description in the text for the moon "one cubit in front of the Rear Foot ofthe Lion (sigma-Leonis) in Line 3, and the moon 1 cubit in front of the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" which we correctly now know is beta-Virginis is the location of the moon in 511BCE!!! A simple error? If the Babylonians INTENDED to make a reference to this second date, what does it imply? It implies for one thing, that 511BCE was the original chronology for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and that 568BCE was the new faked date! It implies this 511BCE was hidden in this text to preserve the original dating! But is 511BCE in any way a reasonable dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar? Well let's see what happens when we apply the Biblical chronology. If you date year 37 to 511BCE, then year 23 falls in 525BCE. According to Josephus, that was 70 years from the 1st of Cyrus since that was the year of the last deportation. And that means what? It means that the 1st of Cyrus would fall in 455BCE. OOPS! So you see, depending upon HOW you read this text, you can date the fall of Jerusalem by the VAT4956 in either 529BCE or to 587BCE, your choice. But not really, since the cryptic date always preempts the epitextual dating, so 511BCE is meant to preempt 568BCE. Is there a problem here? YES! Because 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus works out just fine Biblically as the year the Jews began to rebuild Jerusalem connected with the 70 weeks prophecy and Jesus' baptism in 29CE. Now I didn't post this to CONVINCE anybody of this but to show that there is VALID REASON to question the evidence. It is too difficult to just think these errors are just here unintentionally and just happen to match up with some interpretations of the Biblical chronology. But that "debate" ends when you discover the SK400 does the same thing when it dates "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar to 541BCE!! So the UNIFOMRED tend to believe the loudest arguments or the most scholarly supported "evidence" but those who actually look closer find lies and deceptions and some interesting comparisons to the Bible's timeline. 587BCE supports can't expect us to just turn a blind eye and pretend there's no significance to this, especially when the alternative is to believe the Babylonian records are more reliable than the Jewish historians. I don't think so, especially now that the VAT4956 basically proves the Persians lied about their own chronology; the VAT4956 is a Persian record, after all, not Jewish. So Scholar is safe, very safe, doubting the evidence supporting 586BCE when it contradicts the Bible. JC
• 

  stevenyc

  7 x 360 = 2520
  -607 + 2520 +1 (no zero year) = 1914

  
  I see where your going but I disagree with your methodology. I think it should be this:
  1914 ?2520 ? 1 = -607
  

  Okay, lets move history to fit 607

  steve
• 

  City Fan

  JC,

  the Messiah must stop preaching to the abandoned world no more than 4-1/2 years prior to that time. The 4.5-year date for ending the preaching is this September 8th, 2004.

  Did you get this wrong?
• 

  drawcad_1

  This always becomes a very theatrical debate and I love reading some of the posts. Scholar and Jcanon are some of the best, not because they are very believable, but because they show the absolute lack of evidence on the subject and instead work at disqualifying the physical evidence, Or as AlanF put it, the ?mountain of evidence for 587/6 BCE?.

  The original message on this topic asked how the society refutes the discrepancy and the appendix to chapter 14 was mentioned. A very good resource that shows the normal dub all of the evidence for 587 and it makes a tie into Egyptian chronology that also fits in very well with the secular date. I have also been made aware of a book by Rolf Furuli that rehashes all the watcthower claims and does not use anything except the bible to prove 607BCE. But, this book is being used by some witlesses that are trying desperately to hold onto their beliefs.

  I hope the two previously mentioned posters continue to respond. What a circus of responses they bring to this board.
• 

  DanTheMan

  JCanon:

  paragraphs

  please!
• 

  JCanon

  the Messiah must stop preaching to the abandoned world no more than 4-1/2 years prior to that time. The 4.5-year date for ending the preaching is this September 8th, 2004.

  Did you get this wrong? -- City Fan

  Interesting you pulled this up! (A simple "yes" would do, right? )

  Actually, this is interesting because the September 8th date was connected with the Festival of Booths' chronology, and this upcoming passover is six months later, looking at another "cutoff" of sorts. So I'm dating things in line with the Jewish secular new year and ceremonial New Year in terms of Passover and the Festival of Booths. The "silence" concept is based upon the Ark being sealed off 7 days before the flood took place and a "day for a year" application made. So if I wanted Armageddon to chyme in at a certain time allowing for 7 years prior to Armageddon beginning, the sooner I stopped preaching the sooner this would happen. If I kept on preaching, then that would just keep extending when the 7 years could be fulfilled.

  So first of all the 7 years is not only conditional, it's floating. But that was then and I have a little more information now.

  For one thing, notice this is six months later. September 8 was looking at the Festival of Booths and this coming Passover which is another "focal" point for some type of cutoff is six months afterward, but with the same "year".

  So, to be frank, I'm not sure if the old chronology still applies specifically or if there has been a six-month extension.

  But there is another "little detail" of focus now that would have me "re-phrase" the above statement.

  1) The Ark was closed at 7 days which is one way of saying the door to the kingdom was closed for 7 years before the flood began. That entailed preaching to would be persons during a time when it was possible to still actually get into the kingdom.

  2) The seven-year period could actually be more specific to THAT aspect of the "darkness" and not specifically to my not preaching at all. So what is specifically different may not be as loosely connected to my "preaching" to the world but the nature of the message. The cutoff thus would be to potential anointed ones being able to get into the kingdom, but not my preaching condemnation or rejection to those who didn't get in or to the world in being involved with God's plan as it related to me delivering the world messages.

  The scriptural basis for this closer concept is the parable where Jesus speaks of the apostates who come knocking on the door wanting to get into the kingdom and they recall to Christ "we ate in front of you, you teaching in our broadways." So this indicates that Christ basically was no longer teaching in their broadways and had gotten up and closed the door to the kingdom. Some event made those who rejected him realize he really was the Christ after all and they were now trying to get in and Christ rejects them.

  But under the general application of "preaching", though Christ was not teaching in the broadways, he was still communicating with them what their situation was. So it's not exactly SILENCE.

  So that's sort of the BAD NEWS for everybody on the outside and me as well. The "darkness" and exclusion from the ark is of a spiritual nature and that may mark for 7 years at least for the world to last before Armageddon, etc. But that would not necessarily mean total vocal silence from the Messiah as Noah might have been silent since Christ still address them after the door is closed.

  But now looking at it more closely, it's a presumption that Noah could not hear the people outside, right? I mean the rains didn't start for 7 days. They could light fires as before. They could function those seven days with firelight and might have gone over to the ark and tried to talk to Noah. There was a window at the top and he could have heard some of them and yelled out to them, "God closed the door, I can't let you in! By the way, while you're out there, can you try and throw up my Star Wars videos, I forget them in my den!" and they would say, "How are you going to play them, you need a VCR and you don't have electricity in that boat!" and Noah would say, "Oh yeah, that's right! Now I remember why I left them. Okay, never mind! But there's nothing I can do, I'm locked in, you're locked out! Sorry!"

  SOOOOOOO... maybe the chrology being foccused on is the closing of the door and the "REVELATION OF THE CHRIST".

  It's reasonable to presume that those who rejected Christ at first, in some way suddenly recognized him or accepted he was the Messiah. We might reasonably presume this was due to some miracle they saw or finally accepted or something like that. In turn, this could relate to the references in the scriptures that this occurs as the "Revelation" of the Christ. You see, first Christ comes as a thief and in the clouds and then later he is "revealed" to the world but at that time the gate to the kingdom has been closed, and it's too late. And there is this period of them wanting to get in but they can't.

  So maybe we're close to that REVELATION in some way. Things are "active" in the JIOR right now all of a sudden, but I'll give you the NEWS about some possibilities!

  For one, remember the FIRST RESURRECTION? This occurs like the Messiah when those needing to be resurrected as part of the 144,000 are implanted "seeded" (1 Cor 15) into the bodies of modern anointed ones! Very sci-fi, right? But absolutely brilliant since it's invisible AND there is no orientation period taking up lots of time getting these ancient people oriented into the modern world.

  Two, there is the issue of those NOT NEEDING THE RESURRECTION, like Paul and John who lived through the centuries and ostensibly apparently maintained many pertinent ancient records over these years, records I believe were stumbled upon by the Templars along with their meaning forcing John and others to flee and hide elsewhere and this began the "Quest for the Grail" the search for John, who carried the bloodline of Jesus and all these ancient documents as alluded to by John Brown in "The DaVinci Code", etc.

  So, rather than a miracle like raising the dead, which half the people who claim was a photographic trick, or some other visual allusion they don't know how happened and would continue in denial, and some would say, yes, I believe this person rose from the dead, but this is by the power of SATAN and would order me killed or something. So that would not necessary work.

  But what if a few of these ancient people suddenly came out of the closet (well, to use a better expression) or the wordwork. Came out of hiding, out the "secret place" in the wilderness, meaning from behind the JIOR secret society and produced a few key ancient texts verifiable by the ancient librarians? !!!! That would cause a huge stir! But it might be enough to finally make any doubters say, OKAY, I guess I believe the Bible now and you really are the Messiah, la, la, la, la, so I believe now, I'm ready to join your kingdom now.....???

  Who knows, but something like that is all that it would take!

  There is also some scenarios in scriptures that suggest that Gog of Magog will attack God's people and hasten Armageddon, etc. though this happened at the time of the first "great tribulation" when the Nazis attacked the Jews. Another suggestion the anointed, the JIOR will make themselves public or become recognizable in some way. Maybe the JIOR, which is 144k x10, that is 1, 444,000 will suddenly and openly recognize the Messiah and suddenly I will have this huge following which will totally wig out the FBI and CIA and everybody else since they don't like this "Jesus cults" like David Koresh and feel a great responsibility to suppress and control them. So instant public showdown and focus!

  So who knows. But if suddenly I had a congregation of one and a half million followers would you believe me then? Some might!

  So back to your original question. I didn't get the chronology wrong but the phrasing. I was wrong to think that I wouldn't be preaching AT ALL after the door was closed, since apparently I still will be God's spoken, but it won't be of the same specific sort of "teaching in the broadways" as before, which was what I was focussed on. The "teaching in the broadways" of the apostates represents posting educational (loose term right?) information on JW message boards.

  These last messages, though, are more specifically for JIOR members already in or new ones that need things explained in a direct manner to get them on page with others who have already gotten these things worked out.

  So my TEACHING may stop this Passover and start the potential 7 years, but my PREACHING (which includes condemnation and name-calling) might not stop. It might stop on these boards though because basically I figure all the moderators have to do is ban me from posting, so my public forum might change.

  So we'll see. Like I said, I saw Paul around here the other day and JIOR activity is WAY UP, so something is about to happen.

  Another new point now focussed on, is God's judgment of the world is spoken of as occurring in ONE HOUR. Check Revelation and other Scriptures. That is generally read as "quickly" but now we understand that can be, you got it, SEVEN YEARS! So the 7 days/7 years of "darkness" after the Ark is closed, could being God's DAY OF ANGER of 7 years against the world before the final end of the system of things at Armageddon, those it's possible "those days would be cut short."

  This corresponds with the DAY OF GOD'S ANGER against the Jews from 1940 to 1947 and the HOLOCAUST as the Great Tribulation being cut short prior to 1947 in the spring of 1945. That's the 2-1/2 years "cut short" of the great tribulation of a full 7 years of God's anger.

  So if you want to put this in terms of a PREDICTION that you can come back later and say didn't happen, though I'm predicting this "conditionally", it would be like the Watchtower saying that potentially the millennium could begin as soon as shortly after 7 years from Passover 2005, which is Passover 20012, and/OR Armageddon would begin as early as 2-1/2 to 3-3/4 years earlier than that, because we have chronology surrounding the delay of the destruction of the nations and the destruction of Babylon the great of one year and a season, which is 1-1/4 years. So 3 years and 9 months from Spring of 2012 is the summer of 2008. That's because 3-3/4 years is 3 months short of 4 years (sorry, this is the only way I CAN UNDERSTAND FOR MYSELF! counting backwards.) and 4 years from Spring of 2012 is spring of 2008 give 3 months, which is summer of 2008, which is 3 years and 3 months from now? Hmmmm!

  Plus the scriptures say the Messiah battles with the 7th beast and conquers that beast, meaning the UN and all that. So some big show downs are upcoming with the Messiah clearly in the public light. So that as well suggests I'm not going to be hiding in private.

  But something ELSE has happened of late too. I've been singing live in karaoke bars imitating Diana Ross' singing style and I'm getting close to becoming "commercially good." That's when you're singing and people stop drinking and can't believe what they are hearing it's so beautiful and/or amazing. So it's possible, at least for a while, that if the JIOR does come out in semi-secret, that it will be a simple matter of them seeing me on television performing or in concert. It would explain all the voice training I've been doing of late. Right now I don't consistently perform with that combination of vocal training and sound that I've come across but I'm close to isolating it. The largest concentration of the JIOR base is in Korea, so, you know........if some agent mysteriously comes to one of my shows and says I've got a big $$$ for you to come and perform in Korea, la, la, la, la, then.....I'll just grin and say, "Ohhhhh, sure..........". Of course, Hawaii is ideally situated for visitors from the Far East and Diana Ross' greatest fan base is in Japan, so.....

  So lots of things going on. I know this is all BOOOOORING to you and long and all that, but there is no time to be coy at this point.

  Even so, I'm looking forward to getting on to new things and cutting down on posting time, again, after Passover which is on the 25th, right? Or sooner..... So I'm happy!

  JEEZE! Ask a simple question......
• 

  JCanon

  Drawcad said: This always becomes a very theatrical debate and I love reading some of the posts. Scholar and Jcanon are some of the best, not because they are very believable, but because they show the absolute lack of evidence on the subject and instead work at disqualifying the physical evidence, Or as AlanF put it, the ?mountain of evidence for 587/6 BCE?.

  I hope the two previously mentioned posters continue to respond. What a circus of responses they bring to this board.

  Dear Drawcad-1: This is a very interesting comment. I'm going to take this as a class assignment. Your comments reflect how you see this debate going. I believe I have plenty of evidence and have successfully refuted Jonsson and others. But...you don't see it that way. So it might not be a matter of the evidence, actually, but the form or the way the evidence is presented. In the modern age, seldom are things attacked directly, but you have to be entertaining and sensational for the point to come accross to some people.

  For instance, I've said again and again that the "errors" found in Lines 3 and 14 of the VAT4956, claimed to be extrapolations and "guesses" by the scholars match a SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE LUNAR CYCLE. Now, technically, that's ALL I have to say and all the "evidence" I need to establish revisionism and the original dating in the text. Why? Because you can't simply GUESS two lunar positions in some other year that specifically. BUT...if you don't understand astronomy or have a background in ancient astronomical texts, this will fall on deaf ears. It will also fall on deaf ears if you explain it to somone in detail in a boring book. Interestingly, people hold onto their original ideas or don't change their minds if they don't UNDERSTAND what's right in front of them. Now I considered that your problem, not mine, since I understand, I have the research and background. But, just for arguments sake, I can play the game for "effect" to help you understand and begin to doubt the arguments of those you think have presented a "mountain of evidence". But it's less "evidence" as much as playing the psychological spin game that goes on. It's not winning the argument, but winning the propaganda spin game.

  So. I've already won the argument, but you are not in a position to understand that. The EVIDENCE is right in the VAT4956 itself. But you don't understand that either. So I will play a quick little game with you to destroy your confidence in Jonsson's argument or at least dilute it a bit. So don't go further if you don't want to be influenced subliminally....this is a warning!!! STOP HERE!!!

  Okay...if you're still here.

  Now. As I said, the VAT4956 is a key document that Jonsson uses and others to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE, which supports the 586BCE chronology. Line 3 had already been noted to have an "error" in it noted by the original translators. The moon by calculation was a day later than it appeared in the text. So the translators explained an "error for the eighth" whereas the text said the "ninth". That is, when you calculate the position of the moon for the 9th of the month, it was too far away from where the text said it was, which was 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion (which they assign to beta-Virginis). So they simply noted "an error for the eigth." They noted no other errors though.

  But another well-known archaeoastronomer, Otto Neugebaur, noted that the moon's position in Line 14 was also an "error", only he likewise said it was an error of one day. I will look up the quotes for you on the net.

  Now here's the catch! Line 3's moon was one day too late and Line 14's moon was also one day too late. Jonsson and the scholars presume and/or claim this is just a "scribal error" or "guessing" on the part of the copyists who guessed at perhaps broken or unclear references in the text. Fine. BUT, when you compare the two references in Line 3 and 14, they belong to the same lunar cycle!

  So was this just "guessing" or were they copying from another text? Perhaps mixing up the observations from two different years? One might think as much because it is extremely difficult to predict lunar locations in different years, which is a COMMON FALSE PRESUMPTION. So now I'm going to tell you something about how difficult this is from an astronomy point of view.

  The moon does not simply travel around the earth. It has an elliptical orbit. That is, the orbit wobbles up and down. That's why sometimes we get an eclipse and sometimes we don't. But as far as lunar observations go, it has the opital illusional effect of the moon traveling at different speeds through the zodiac signs. There are 12 zodiac signs and if the Moon goes through all of them each month in 30 days, say, then it would take 2-1/2 days to travel through each one. But what happens because of the elliptical rotation is that it appears to travel through the signs at different speeds.

  In other words, on the first of the month, the moon might begin specifically near a certain star in two different years. But if the moon is not in the same precisely ellipitcal position, in one year it might go through Virgo in just 2 days and take 3 days to pass through Leo, but in the other year, just the opposite would appear to take place, but in 30 days the moon would end up in the precise same location.

  What this does for dating is that if you have TWO LUNAR POSITION OBSERVATIONS for any given year, it will be unique to that year to perhaps up to 1000 years! Because no two years are going to be exactly the same.

  In other words, if you have an observation that is 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis on the 9th of month 1 and 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis on the 5th of te third month, that combination would not occur in perhaps over 1000 years! You will get close matches, but not exactly the same.

  So when it was noticed that the two "errors" were both a day earlier than the other lunar observations, that became curiously specific. The two observations were linked to 511BCE, as you know.

  But the point of this little comment now gets back to the arguments of Jonsson and others that the scribes were just guessing something and filling in something or anything not specific because the text was broken off and that's what the "error" was about. But my argument is that, sure that's reasonable to consider IF the errors were not matched or connected in any way or matched up with some other astronomical year. Because of the specific nature of the lunar cycle and the difficulty to even predict this, the chances of some untrained copyist guessing the precise location twice of another year is hardly reasonable.

  But, of course, it gets worse. Once you identify the year these references belong to, which is 511BCE, even if you still imagined this was just an incredible coincidence, how is it that of all the coincidental guesses for lunar positions specifically for some other year that it just so happens to be 511BCE? What's so special about 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar? That's year the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in when you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE and use Josephus to add 70 years to the last deportation in year 23, which is 525BCE, meaning year 37 falls in 511BCE.

  Now you have a choice:

  You can either think that these are just "guesses" by copyists and just happen to match up with 511BCE, inserted because the text was broken or unclear when they could have left it blank or noted "text broken" as they did i nother places...

  OR...

  Since this text was from the Seleucid Period, long after both 568BCE and 511BCE when both texts would have been available, you might consider that there was some reason for mixing up these observations. And proceed further.

  But be CAREFUL IF YOU PROCEED, because it is a one day drop to the bottom!

  Why? Because if the double-dating was "intentional" then it invalidates the text and suggests 511BCE was the original dating for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

  So your choice. Mindless guesses? when they could have simply left a blank or said "text broken"? which guesses just HAPPEN to match up astronomically to 511BCE, year 37 per the Bible?

  Or face REALITY and realize what you are really looking at. An effort of the ancient revisionists to hide some safe references to the original chronology that had been changed in a diary that otherwise was chronologically correct. It's quite a brilliant way to do it.

  The only serious challenge at this point to this theory and dating would be the Bible's chronology. But the Bible doesn't contradict the 511BCE dating in the text, it agrees with it.

  So it's sort of END OF STORY.

  So if you're informed enough, the "evidence" is quite convincing and final. And this goes double when you consider the SK400 actually does the very same thing!

  So for those, like myself, who actually analyze the texts and do all the calculations themselves, they get a different answer than if you let others who have their own agenda do it. And that's my some continue to accept what the "experts say" and think they have the better argument. Keep in mind, AlanF himself discovered that Sachs/Hunger lied about what was in Line 18 of the text. That proves right there you cannot depend always upon the people who are translating these texts and making claims about what is in the text if they have alterior motives. But who would check behind a leading professor in the field? Someone who was discovered to be lying? Result, ignorance and deception proliferates among people who think things are final and they simply are not.

  My message to you, therefore is, simply that I can perhaps understand if you accept what the "experts" are accepting via their "mound of evidence" but you can't expect me to think these "errors" were accidental under the circumstances. No way. No one could guess TWICE IN THE SAME TEXT the precise lunar locations for the same lunar year suspected of being the original chronology year. But it makes sense if they changed the chronology to try to hide a secret reference to the original chronology in this way since all other astronomical texts would be destroyed or made to conform with the new chronology.

  So what really needs to be done is to prepare this in a paper and present it to the universit professors and Astronomy and ancient historical departments for "peer review." Once the scholars involved and astronomy students are aware of the issues, then it will get attention and some of them will come down on my side of the argument that this is evidence for revisionism and that 511BCE is the apparent original dating. This will lead to other investigations and then other pieces of the puzzle will fall into place.

  THEN some professor will try to make money in a book about it and present all the data and then they will officially change the dating because they are forced to do so, and THEN all the people who had this information on hand before all that will THEN say, "Okay, okay, I see it now, now that a professor is speaking the words, I can accept this." The world has been trained to rely upon experts and not think for themselves. Not question. Thus deception flourishes.

  JCanon
• 

  M.J.