"JTEM" <jtem01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:60b56d3f-c76d-43c8-952b-6ccc3b525402@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> HA! All you can do is call me a "liar" since you have
> nothing else.
>Listen, toad. There isn't a single English speaking person
on this planet, who gives a damn what Kenyon said, that
doesn't already know she dated the destruction to the
16th century BC.
And there's not a single English-speaking person who has
read her book that doesn't realize there was more than one
destructive level at Jericho besides the 16th century one. But
you're too ignorant to know that. There was an MBA and
a LBA destruction that she discusses. She chooses to place
the Israelites with the LBA destruction rather than the
MBA destruction.
Now you never quote Kenyon directly, but since I actually
have the book, I will:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is
a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
See? There is another destruction during the LBA period. It doesn't mean
she didn't talk about a 16th century destruction earlier. But this is a
different settlement.
Of course, as I've pointed this out to you dozens of times before, I just
assume you're
too stubborn or too stupid to fully understand the issue.
As far as those who want to dismiss Kenyon's findings. Great. It's their
word against
a famous, seasoned archaeologist who actually did the dig. Go ahead and
contradict
her on point. See how much egg on your face you get. In fact, most need
to
distort
her reference, as you do, to distract from her clear expertise in this
issue. They need
to minimize it or suppress it some way. That's why people like you don't
like me
bringing up her name in connection with the 1350-1325 BCE assignment
because
it adds credibility to the Exodus at the time of Akhenaten theory.
But too bad. That's where Kenyon dates the Israelites, that's her
professional
OPINION and if you think you know better than her, then be my guest.
Look
as
stupid as you need to.
> The KTU 1.78 proves the Exodus occurred in 1386 BCE.
#1. It's not dated.
Again, your ignorance. The detail of the eclipse observation absolutely
dates it
to no other year than 1375 BCE. The text is:
sixth.day of new moon.Hiyyaru
enter.sun.her gate.Reshep
MEANING:
An eclipse occurred in the sixth hour, day of the new moon of Hiyyaru.
The sun entered Her Gate in Reshep.
The Egyptians believed the sun was swallowed by the Goddess in
the evening and went through 12 GATES during the night, emerging
through her final gate, which was her vulva, as she gave birth to the sun
in the morning. Since you cannot observe the zodiac position of the sun
during mid-day, it is observed at the time of sunrise. So this merely is
referencing that the sun rose, or entered through HER gate in Reshep.
Reshep is a reference to the zodiac constellation of TAURUS, the
"Bull of Heaven." Reshep's title is "Lord of Heaven" which exchangeable
with "Bel/Bull of Heaven" the formal name for Taurus.
But most im****tantly, since the specific hour of the text is given, it
virtually eliminates any other dating within thousands of years that would
have been seen at Ugarit except for 1375 BCE, which does indeed
occur between 5-6 a.m., the sixth hour counting from Midnight.
So, IT IS DATED. Only an amateur like you would suggest it wasn't.
#2. Whether or not it mentions an eclipse at all is open for
debate.
No it is NOT. It is open for debate for people who don't know
ancient astronomy. I've heard that before. Some say that because
the description of the eclipse is confused. Some translate it as:
"the day of the new moon was put to shame and the sun set with Reshep
as her gatekeeper."
Of course, with the above inaccurate translation one might presume
this is not about an eclipse.
But not when it is translated correctly as:
Sixth hour, day of the noon moon of Hiyyaru.
The sun rose in Taurus.
But the absolute confirmation that this is an ecipse reading is
the liver reading on the obverse of this text!! You see, when an
eclipse occurred, it was considered a good or bad omen for
certain regions. The perimeter of the sun was divided into thirds,
so that if the eclipse occurred beginning in the lower third it
meant bad news for that region, etc. But sometimes it could not
be clearly determined which thrid specifically the eclipse began
in, etc. So a liver reading was customary to confirm the eclipse
reading. In the case of this eclipse, the beginning of the eclipse
was missed completely; it was already in progress at sunrise at
Ugarit. So definitely a supplemental liver reading was
necessary. Period.
Now those who don't KNOW that liver readings and eclipses
go together are the ones thinking this doesn't relate to an eclipse.
They didn't factor that in because they lack total experience
in the field. The liver reading itself, therefore, confirms this
is an eclipse.
This text is just a liver reading with the specifics of the hour, day
and month of the ecilpse event. HOW OBVIOUS CAN YOU
GET? It's obvious to someone who knows liver readings
are associated/supplemental to eclipse readings, but not to
some Assyriologists who are just considering the language issues,
and mistranslating the text on top of that. For instance, anyone
with experience in astronomical texts and eclipse references
would have known right up front that Reshep was a reference
to the zodiac position of the Sun, which is generic to an
eclipse observation. They wouldn't have tried to imagine
it was Mars!! Further, how can Mars be a "gatekeeper"
when it is a moving planet? A GATE is stationary. Hello?
So they may be smart at translating but they are totally
dumb and ignorant about astronomy, so they make these
crazy presumptions that are totally off base when the
obvious is right there.
THIS IS VERY, VERY, VERY SIMPLE!!!
The basics only for a liver reading for an eclipse. The time, day and
month
of
the eclipse and which zodiac position the sun rose in on one side,
and the supplemental liver reading on the other, since they missed
the beginning of the eclipse. The beginning of the eclipse is
the negative omen. That's what the inquiry was. Whether this
was negative for Ugarit or not. The liver reading confirms it
was a negative eclipse for Ugarit. Period.
So sorry, this is DEFINITELY a standard eclipse reading
text. I'll be glad to point that out to anybody who thinks
contrary, by simply noting the liver reading was necessary
for this ecilpse and noting that liver readings often accompanied
eclipse texts.
Otherwise, you'd have to explain the basis for a special
do***ented liver reading in connection with the eclipse text,
which clearly references some astronomical and dating data.
This is a perfect, direct, eclipse text, but that is so specific
because it gives the hour of the eclipse, it can only be dated
to 1375 BCE. PERIOD. Now if you don't like this,
I suggest you go some place and induce a seminal
emission behind the barn so you'll feel better about this,
because it ain't gonna change. EVER.
#3. Even amongst those who (mistakenly) agree it mentions
an eclipse there is no census on the exact interpretation of
the text, and the date of such an eclipse.
That's OLD NEWS. As I said, the liver reading was not
considered as a factor in confirming this was an eclipse
reading. The DATE is there in connection with this text,
that factor alone combined with a liver reading suggests
it was an eclipse. That is, if you just had the date alone with
the liver reading it would be presumed to be consistent
with an eclipse reading. We could use the date alone
to confirm the eclipse. But especially the hour and date
as well limits this.
But the fact that it is giving us the zodiac position the
sun rose in, confirms all the more this is an ecipse event
since the zodiac position of the sun is generic to the
eclipse. That is, the basics: TIME and LOCATION.
When the eclipse occured and WHERE the eclipse occurred
in terms of the Zodiac.
So forget it. It DEFINITELY IS a standard liver reading
for an eclipse event happening the sixth hour on the day
of the new moon in Hiyyaru.
Furthermore, let's say if this was still up for grabs in the
minds of some people who don't realize liver readings
were common for eclipse readings. The hour of the eclipse is
so specific, we could easily tell if this eclipse was a reference
to an actual event or not during the Amarna Period, during
the conventional reign of Akhenaten. That's where we'd look
first. If there was no eclipse match, THEN some might argue
this was something else. But we find it immediately in 1375 BCE.
The specific eclipse occurring between 5 and 6 a.m., the sixth
hour, during the month of Hiyyaru when the sun was indeed
in Taurus.
So why wouldn't anyone but a dummy or someone who doesn't
know ancient astronomy not realize this was the eclipse reference?
But BE MY GUEST. Fantasize all you want from your outdated
quotes of inexperienced ones that this is not clearly an eclipse,
based solely on the confusing mistranslation.
>>All you're doing is quote mining, cherry-picking those few
words which can be misrepresented as sup****ting your
agenda, even as you ignore the miles & miles of text which
utterly exclude your fantasy.
Ha! I was going to accuse YOU of doing this, only you are
picking the wrong quotes! Anybody can get an astro program
and look up this eclipse if they want. But NASA's dating is
1375 BCE which is the standard dating for this event, since
it is the only ecilpse match during the CONVENTIONAL
Amarna Period. David Rohl ambitiously tries to relocate
this eclipse to 1012 BCE, but he can't if btt is translated
as "six, sixth" rather than "put to shame." That's because
the 1012 BCE eclipse does not happen during the
sixth hour, but the 1375 BCE eclipse does.
So, sorry, BUT, I think if those commenting on the text
were updated about the common relation****p between
an eclipse and a liver reading then it would become more
comfortable as to this being an eclipse text. Further,
if they understood the actual translation reference as well
it would be less confusing. And after all that, 1375 BCE
is the only choice, so it IS DATED! It is dated to
1375 BCE and no other date. Period.
How can you say this is not "dated" when the DATE is
right there in the text? Day of the new Moon of Hiyyaru?
So it is DATED. The problem is the year, which is
where the eclipse comes in, and the SIXTH HOUR.
That's when the eclipse was observed at its earliest,
at sunrise when it was already in progress.
So...
Why fight it, JTEM? NASA has already assigned the
ecilpse to 1375 BCE, and you have nothing! No one
at this point would seriously not consider this an eclipse
reference if they had all the facts and understood ancient
astronomy custom better.
Anyway, thanks for showing us you are again OUT OF
YOUR DEPTH to comment here. It is you who is
quote cherry-picking, not me. You can't cherry-pick
an astronomical reference from an astro program. I
have the PROOF.
Further, this agrees with the conventional dating for
Akhenaten.
Of course, again, if you MISS THIS at close range, what
possible use are you to yourself in more complex judgments?
Where there are actually more than one option? There is
no other option here. Not for Rohl or anybody else.
Lars Wilson
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
|
