Many don't even know what the VAT4956 is. It's an astronomical text from
the Seleucid Period. Oops? That's right. Since it does not originate
from
the NB Period but is only a "copy" it can immediately be dismissed as a
fraudulent do***ent, automatically considered as revised. That is
especially in the context of no original do***ents surviving.
The context of the VAT4956, therefore, is that all the thousands of
astronomical texts from the NB that should have still survived along with
all the business do***ents that have, were actually destroyed during the
Seleucid Period. We know they existed because of what is in the VAT4956
"copy."
Even so, what clear purpose would there be to copy the obstructions of
just
one year of an ancient king into an astronomical text containing over 140
astronomical references? What interest would that have been during the
Seleucid Era? There isn't any.
But, if there was a panic about losing any original references to the
original chronology, which had been revised by this time and thus the
basis
for destroying the original astronomical texts, then some means of trying
to
hide some of the original texts must have been entertained. Instead,
someone smart came up with one better than that. To create a new
do***ent
aligned to the new chronology in the form of a diary. The diary would
then
be camouflage for carefully placed astronomical references from the
original
chronology.
That's basically what the VAT4956 is. It's an ingenius "hide in plain
sight" kind of reference back to the original chronology. How does it
manage this?
By COINCIDENCE!
Once a coincidence between the astronomy and the history was established
then it was possible to sort of mix-and-match in the same do***ent. The
casual reader would see the greater abundance of the planetary, solar and
lunar references all matched quite perfectly to the new dating, but
strategically placed lunar observations from the original dating would
also
appear in the text. They would basically go unnoticed by any by
astronomers
who would simply note it was an "error." Once presumed to be an error,
it
would be ignored. The text would be copied numerous times to help assure
survival to later times.
It WORKED!
We now have a diary text with the majority of references all pointing to
year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BCE, the new timeline date. But two
"errors" are specific to where the Bible's strict timeline dates year 37
of
Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE. Thus you have to explain a triple
"coincidence"
for this error in order to dismiss the obvious; which is that the text
itself was created in the form of a diary to create a hide-in-plain-sight
place for secret references to the original chronology. That is.
1. You have to explain the error in the first place since it was copied
from texts of observation.
2. You have TWO errors pointing to the same year, 511 BCE.
3. 511 BCE is not simply a random nonsensical date. It's year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzer per Biblical dating.
That's too many coincidences for us not to know these were intentional
references to the original chronology. But once we arrive at that
presumption and probability, and start looking at how dating year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE would affect other dated events, it becomes
clear
the 511 BCE dating works much better than the revised dating when it comes
to what is actually dated archaeologically.
Case in point the fall of Rehov by ****shak now dated by RC14 to c. 871
BCE.
The 511 BCE dating would ****ft the eclipse used to date the Assyrian
Period
down 54 years from 763 BCE to 709 BCE and thus ****shak's invasion now
dated
far too early in 925 BCE would fall precisely where the RC14 is pointing,
to
c. 871 BCE!!
So essentially ZERO EFFECT on the David and Solmonic archaeology other
than
confirming that Solomon did rule during the early 9th century BCE as
archaeologists have already confirmed as far as when the monumental
buildings were built, etc. Further, this would not affect earlier
Egyptian dating since even the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE as
Kenyon notes would have dated Solomon's rule no earlier than 914 BCE, also
dating him to the early 9th century BCE. So the early Egyptian timeline
is
not affected at all either. Thus the only major changes are to the NB
and
Persian Periods.
When this was looked into, the 82-year excessive years for the Persian
Period easily collapse down prior to the reign of Artaxerxes III in 358
BCE.
So no problem. The archaeology from Persia, which is scan, not only does
not sup****t this longer period but also in some ways confirm that Xerxes
and
Artaxerxes were, indeed, the same king!
So what is significant about the VAT4956, is not that it is not already
apparent that we would have to readjust this timeline, but it is a direct
reference to what the timeline originally was. It is an extra-Biblical
source that can be used to absolutely redate and correct the current
timeline. That's the beauty of it.
The ALTERNATIVE is to pretend the 511 BCE inclusions in the text are just
spontaneous errors and mean nothing. Which is a joke at this point.
But this is also rap on the knuckles of Assyriologists. Not keeping up
with
the latest evidence and theories as far as astronomical texts that are now
used to date the current NB Period.
I wonder how can anyone who is educated, not understand the cir***stance
and
genius of using a diary to hide secret information. It's the perfect
camouflage. And it worked! For the most part the do***ent would be
copied
and used to establish the revised timeline. Only someone aware of the
original dating would likely make a connection between those "errors" and
the original timeline.
Finally, it is not the only "diary" like this that does it. The SK400
likewise has an "error" in it that matches an eclipse interval between two
eclipses the same year to the interval in 541 BCE. The text is dated to
"year 7" of Kambyses. Year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar 2 falls in 541 BCE when
the
original timeline is restored though. So it is clear this is the second
astronomical text reference that feigns as a diary dated to the revised
timeline that has dating specific to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.
At some point, of course, this suggests that Jews were likely behind the
creation of these texts because cross-dating or double-dating to the rule
of
Nebuchadnezzar provides a corrective dating for that king for the Biblical
timeline since the rule of Nebuchadnezzar is the most do***ented pagan
ruler****p found in the Bible.
STRICT BIBLICAL DATING: As per Martin Anstey who wrote "The Romance of
Biblical Chronology" the true date for the 1st of Cyrus is linked to when
Jesus was baptized in 29 CE, meaning that the 1st of Cyrus must be dated
to
455 BCE. In that case, year 23 is dated to 525 BCE which is 70 years
earlier, representing the 70 years spent in servitude by the last
de****tees.
In that case, year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 511 BCE.
So for those using strict Bible chronology to redate the NB Period, we
don't
have to do that solely based upon the Biblical reference now, we have the
VAT4956 confirming 511 BCE as the original dating for year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar. Had there been no revision in the first place, there
would
be no need for the reconstructed diary and no need for any double-dating.
Therefore, the diary itself along with the double-dating confirm the
timeline was revised!! It proves the finalized date of 568 BCE was the
last
fabrication of the teimeline. But at the same time, it confirms for us
the
original dating to 511 BCE.
As I said, how much of a COINCIDENCE is it that two astronomical texts
from
the wrong period of time, copied several times over for some reason (i.e.
there are five extant copies/fragments of the SK400!!), just happen to
match
up with the strict Biblical timeline for these events? This is an OSCAM
razor type of observation. What is most apparent is true. The timeline
was changed, new texts were created to match the new timeline, but some
diaries were created to hide what the secret dating was during the reign
of
Nebuchadnezzar, which has specific dating in the Bible.
Now, since upon close examination the VAT4956 proves the original dating,
however long it takes the British Museum, Assyriologists, universities and
others to finally come to grips with the original timeline, is that much
longer they will appear either incompetent or biased, if not dishonest.
Right now they have PI (Plausible Deniability) if they haven't examined
this
closely. But eventually they will have to weigh in on the text and the
discrepancies. Getting one to do that is difficult because most of them
simply run away or pretend it is not pertinent. But it will catch up with
them eventually and when it does, correcting the other periods will not be
a
problem, since that has already been done. The 402 BCE eclipse dates
the
1st year of the Peloponnesian War, the VAT4956 dates the rule of
Nebuchadnezzar and the NB Period, and the 709 BCE eclipse dates the
Assyrian
Period. All perfect matches!
Lars Wilson
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
|
