VAT 4956/LBAT 1420 question


Viewed 2431 times

    outsmartthesystem posted Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:24:00 GMT(9/14/2011)

    Post 115 of 1178
    Joined 5/19/2011

    I posted this as comment number one million in the Nov 1 WT thread...but I'll post here too:

    I don't know if this has been discussed yet....but if it is agreed that VAT 4956 is from the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (the argument being was year 37 in 568 or 588BC), and there is no argument that BM 38462 (LBAT 1420) shows 2 eclipse records for year 17.....then what is the JW response to the details of those eclipses? BM 38462 (LBAT 1420) describes in great detail an eclipse that happened on Tebetu 13 of the 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The details say that it happened in the "morning watch". "1 beru, 5 degrees before sunrise. All of it was covered. It set eclipsed". It just happens to be that the 13th day of Tebetu would have fallen on January 8th of 587BC. With the Babylonians dividing the 24 hour day into 12 beru or 360 degrees (one beru = 2 hours and each degree = 4 minutes).......1 beru and 5 degrees would equal about 2 hours and 20 minutes. According to what was written on the tablet, this eclipse began about 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was a total eclipse (hence "all of it was covered"). And it set eclipsed (the eclipse ended after moonset). My my....there just happened to be an eclipse on January 8, 587BC that began at 4:51 am (in the morning watch) just like the text says. Sunrise occurred at 7:12 am that day. The difference between 4:51 am and 7:12 am is 2 hours and 21 minutes.....just like the text says. The moon was FULLY eclipsed from 5:53 am until 7:38 am. Moonset occurred at 7:17am. So this means taht the eclipse was still TOTAL at moonset (hence, it "set while eclipsed).

    This description in the text matches the eclipse that happened on January 8, 587BC perfectly. But if the 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 20 years the Watchtower claims....then this eclipse would have happened in December 608BC/January607BC. Does ANYONE know if there are any eclipse records from December 608BC/January 607BC? And if so....are they even close to matching the description given in the text?

    M Doug Mason posted Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:25:00 GMT(9/15/2011)

    Post 1169 of 1552
    Joined 1/20/2007

    I have no idea if this will be of any help: "Five Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses -1999 to +3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE)", Espenak and Meeus, NASA. Available for download at:

    The main page at NASA is:

    They also have a search engine for SOLAR eclipses at

    On the page it says:

    "The Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer can compute the local circumstances for every lunar eclipse visible from a city for any century from -1999 to 3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE). When was the last total lunar eclipse visible from London? When is the next partial lunar eclipse visible from New York? These questions and many others can be answered easily using this web tool. Pick a geographic location and search for all eclipses visible from that spot over several thousand years."

    I hope that's a bit of a help and is relevant to your needs.


    M Doug Mason posted Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:09:00 GMT(9/15/2011)

    Post 1170 of 1552
    Joined 1/20/2007

    According to Stephenson ("Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation", page 97):

    "The geograhic co-ordinates of Babylon are: lat. = +32.55 deg, long. = -44.42 deg. Since the plain in which the site of the city is located is so flat, there is no need to make any allowance for horizon profile in deducing the time of sunrise or sunset, etc."


    VM44 posted Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:02:00 GMT(9/15/2011)

    Post 6384 of 6610
    Joined 7/1/2001

    "The geograhic co-ordinates of Babylon are: lat. = +32.55 deg, long. = -44.42 deg. Since the plain in which the site of the city is located is so flat, there is no need to make any allowance for horizon profile in deducing the time of sunrise or sunset, etc."

    Thanks Doug, that is important information.

    outsmartthesystem posted Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:14:00 GMT(9/15/2011)

    Post 116 of 1178
    Joined 5/19/2011

    I've been out on a trip and will be tomorrow too. I'll check out those links sometime though. Thakns

    M Doug Mason posted Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:16:00 GMT(9/15/2011)

    Post 1174 of 1552
    Joined 1/20/2007


    I suggest that you will get more precise information when you Google for the geographic co-ordinates (and in terms of minutes and seconds), the elevation above sea level, and the time zone.


    outsmartthesystem posted Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:28:00 GMT(9/15/2011)

    Post 117 of 1178
    Joined 5/19/2011


    Perhaps I have not educated myself enough yet (or am too dumb to figure out the tables).....but the dates in the Five Millennium Canon don't seem to match up at all with Jonsson's dates. What am I missing?

    M Doug Mason posted Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:35:00 GMT(9/17/2011)

    Post 1175 of 1552
    Joined 1/20/2007

    Hi outsmart,

    At the moment, I can only suggest that the dates by Oppolzer and from NASA are not in agreement. I assume you have downloaded their Catalog:

    where the Introduction provides a narrative on the development of the Canon from Oppolzer's time

    When you go to scroll down and select for example, 03460. That then shows the path of the eclipse for -567 July 04 (that is 568 BCE of course), and explains the reason it was predicted but not seen.

    Did you have a go at the Javascript tool at:

    If so, tell me what your input criteria were (select Baghdad for simplicity sake) and tell me the results you got for say 568 BCE (-567). How do these compare with Oppolzer?

    I shall make enquiries. Maybe others can provide some illumination on this?

    Always remember that the issue of the dates is only a concern for the WTS. The responsibility for verifying dates is their problem, but every time they remove faith in the accuracy of a secular record, they remove a plank from their foundation.


    outsmartthesystem posted Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:48:00 GMT(9/19/2011)

    Post 120 of 1178
    Joined 5/19/2011 appears as though I rushed through and neglected to consider the difference between astronomical year dating and western style year dating.

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:38:00 GMT(9/20/2011)

    Post 2038 of 4399
    Joined 8/11/2003

    ... if it is agreed that VAT 4956 is from the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (the argument being was year 37 in 568 or 588BC), and there is no argument that BM 38462 (LBAT 1420) shows 2 eclipse records for year 17.....then what is the JW response to the details of those eclipses?

    There is nothing official from the WTS I can see (but given these recent WT articles, who knows whether it will be one day?). However, one JW responds this way:

    "Because the scheme with eclipses on LBAT 1420* will perfectly fit a reign of Nebuchadnezzar starting in many different years, the tablet cannot be used to prove that Nebuchadnezzar's year 1 is 604 B.C.E. Moreover, we cannot know whether the scheme of eclipses with five and six month intervals used for the backward calculations by the astrologer was the correct scheme. And a scheme with different intervals would give a perfect fit if 624 was year 1 of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, this tablet has little chronological value." - R. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology (2nd ed., 2008), p. 130-131.

    VM44 posted Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:27:00 GMT(10/18/2011)

    Post 6407 of 6610
    Joined 7/1/2001

    "Does ANYONE know if there are any eclipse records from December 608BC/January 607BC? And if so....are they even close to matching the description given in the text? "

    Here are all the lunar eclipses listed for the years 608 (-607) and 607 (-606)BC.

    Year 608 BC
    Num Year Date Type
    ----- ----- ------ -------
    03357 -0607 Mar 01 Partial
    03358 -0607 Aug 24 Partial

    Year 607 BC
    Num Year Date Type
    ----- ----- ------ ---------
    03359 -0606 Jan 20 Penumbral
    03360 -0606 Feb 18 Penumbral
    03361 -0606 Jul 15 Penumbral
    03362 -0606 Aug 13 Penumbral

    VM44 posted Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:48:00 GMT(10/18/2011)

    Post 6408 of 6610
    Joined 7/1/2001

    Eclipse record: VAT 4956 obverse line 17.

    Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.

    "A lunar eclipse which was omitted."

    July 4, 568 BC (-567)

    Partial eclipse.

    BM 38462, No. 1420, obverse ones 16-18.

    Year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar.

    July 15, 588 BC (-587) BC,

    "omitted eclipse"

    Partial eclipse.

    Second listed eclipse for Nebuchadnezzar year 17.

    "observed lunar eclipse"

    "[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]

    [Month] X, the 13th, morning watch, 1 beru 5° [before sunrise ? ]

    All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed."

    January 8, 587 BC (-586).

    Total eclipse.

    VM44 posted Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:50:00 GMT(10/18/2011)

    Post 6409 of 6610
    Joined 7/1/2001

    Note in particular that there were no total lunar eclipses in the year 607 BC.

    BroMac posted Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:26:00 GMT(10/18/2011)

    Post 4 of 718
    Joined 10/13/2011


    very nicely done.


    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:00 GMT(10/18/2011)

    Post 2079 of 4399
    Joined 8/11/2003

    FWIW, another visual on this one:

    Second listed eclipse for Nebuchadnezzar year 17.

    "observed lunar eclipse"

    "[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]

    [Month] X, the 13th, morning watch, 1 beru 5° [before sunrise ? ]

    All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed."

    January 8, 587 BC (-586).

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:35:00 GMT(10/18/2011)

    Post 2080 of 4399
    Joined 8/11/2003

    By the way, just to underline the point, in addition to VM44's lovely pictures:

    LBAT 1420's entry, [Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.] ...

    ... which, as has already been noted, corresponds to July 15, 588 BC (-587) ...

    ... is the same one that the Nov. WT article attributes to VAT 4956's omitted eclipse in Month III.

    Larsinger58 posted Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:52:00 GMT(10/23/2011)

    Post 1157 of 1158
    Joined 10/11/2009

    Great graphics! The problem here is, though, that the times for eclipses per the astro programs is distorted and does not match the observations in certain texts. This means for an academic reference, you have to calculate using the observation time vs the computer astro program time, which itself has been attempted to align with some Seleucid Period references, but not very well.

    EXAMPLE: You have an excellent, slam-dunk reference between the SK400 and Ptolemy's canon for a partial 50% eclipse occurring in 523 BCE, year 7 of Kambyses. This eclipse time is stated to be "one hour before midnight." That is specific within 4 minutes for a Babylonian time reference. But if you check the program via the location of Babylon (Bagdad) against the time of occurrence, you get a 57-minute discrepancy. Now the canon could use this very specific reference, supported by the SK400 to adjust all eclipse times, but it doesn't. It prefers another. The SK400 says this eclipse occurred 3 hours and 20 minutes "before night." The division of the night called "night" is a period of 32 minutes after sunset. On this date, Tammuz 14, sunset occurred at 7:09 p.m. Add 32 minutes and you get 7:41 p.m. Add 3 hours and 20 minutes and you get 10:61 p.m. which is 11:01, which, of course, is "one hour before midnight." So it's a wonderful match. Only problem is, you don't get that match using the astro program, which is set to some other preferred calculation. So "in practice" you look at two possible eclipse time matches, one that reflects the actual text observation time and one from the program, which is flexible and not absolute.

    That's why this whole discussion is such a joke. We have all these amateurs checking these astronomical observations and times, which is great and wonderful, but they have no idea that the observed references preempt the program times which are often poor matches and which are not absolute. For instance, some think the Earth's rotational speed has been decreasing over time. They found a discrepancy with current calculations and then invented the delta-T to try and make up for it. They just divided it up over 1500 years or so until it gradually aligned to our current times. It's a placebo and a band-aid. So when you see so many so deligently trying to align those observations with those erroneous lunar times, you just bust out laughing.

    Plus the VAT4956 was likely the earliest diary created which hides secret references to the original timeline. But it used the original lunar times and position. Thus if you compare the VAT4956 lunar position and times with the programs there is a 14-16 hour discrepancy. This brings up the issue of the renaming of "The Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) from sigma-Leonis to beta-Virginis sometime after the VAT4956 was created. The two stars are 8 degrees apart. This represents a period of 16 hours. That is, given 360 degrees and 30 days around the zodiac, each day is 12 degrees. If 12 degrees is covered in 24 hours, then each degree covers 2 hours. So the 8 degrees between beta-Virginis and sigma-Leonis represents 16 hours.

    This becomes a point of inquiry due to the SK400. Why? Because the time interval between the two eclipses mentioned in the SK400, which are specific is 2:46 minutes. This is not a match for 523 BCE, year 7 of Kambyses. But it is an interval match for 541 BCE, 18 years earlier where you have similar eclipses. This suggests that 541 BCE is the original date for "year 7" of Kambyses or some other Babylonian or Persian King. It does not fit Kambyses, but per the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year falls in 541 BCE. That is, based on 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus per the Bible, you add 70 years to the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar, the year of the last deportation. That means year 23 falls in 525 BCE and year 7 falls in 541 BCE. So "year 7" is a cryptic reference for 541 BCE to date year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar. But that being the case, that first eclipse actually occurred in 541 BCE "one hour before midnight." If you check the astro program, in order to time that eclipse to 11 p.m. you have to make a 16:14 adjustment! So apparently between the creation of the VAT4956 and the SK400, lunar times were also adjusted by 16 hours, explaining why the "Rear Foot of the Lion" in those later texts is a reference to beta-Virginis rather than sigma-Leonis. But not so in the VAT4956. In the VAT4956, the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) is a reference to sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis is called the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A). The name change introduces a 16-hour revision; about the same revision needed to time the 541 BCE eclipse to one hour before midnight.

    Of course, once you align one eclipse to a new time you have to change ALL OF THEM. To what effect? Well for one, the Nabon 18 eclipse dated to year 2 of Nabonidus in the correct year of 479 BCE shows that total eclipse in the last minute of totality with that 16:14 adjustment from 541 BCE. That gives you a context match for why Nabonidus sacrificed his daughter to the moon god, Sin. That's because the Babylonians experienced a total eclipse that remained total for about 1:37, which is quite long and the moon set in the last minute of totality. This caused a panic. On the other hand, the revised eclipse for year 2 of Nabonidus in 554 BCE was a partial eclipse and was all but recovered by moonset, so where's the basis for the panic? There is none.

    Or you have the eclipse in the VAT4956 which had been noted to be "omitted." But the text language refers to the position of exit as being "DIB" which is the upper right quadrant which is where that eclipse did exit. So this eclipse was actually observed. That is, once you correct the lunar times and then compare that to the observation as in the VAT4956, it makes sense that the "DIB" position is noted in connection with this eclipse. Elsewhere in the text, "DIB" is a positional reference. If the eclipse was not seen it would have ordinarily noted "NU PAP" (not seen). "DIB" has no meaning for a non-observed eclipse. But once you realize it was actually observed then "DIB" matches the location of the eclipse. So correcting the lunar times per the SK400 actually has little effect on texts like the VAT4956. Another line affected is Line 8 where we note the Moon being "4 cubits below beta-Geminorum while the sun stood there." This was on the first day of the month and thus the observation of the new moon crescent observed just before sunset. When you allign the moon to 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum and compare that to the time of sunset at Babylon and the lunar location, there is a 13-16 hour discrepancy. So again, the 16-hour adjustment shows up again and again when you compare the some pre and post VAT4956 texts.

    Thus, as I noted, at the end of the day, trying to use the current times, now distorted by revised texts and the delta-T, you will never get a correct reference. You have to realize these texts were created in the context of revised history and some of the revised texts used the original lunar times and later ones revised lunar times by 16 hours and then tried to cover this up by renaming beta-Virginis as the "Rear Foot of the Lion" to cover their tracks (no pun intended, well maybe...)--it's the same 16 hours!

    So these discussions that are so detailed and academic sounding and scientific are just a big JOKE! I'm ROFLMHO!!! It's all wrong. It's a joke and I could a flying F__K they don't understand how to unravel all of this. The easiest thing is to follow the Bible and all will be well. Now the Bible has lots of archaeological and secular support for the true timeline. The WTS is a false prophet as prophesied.

    The Bible depicts Lazarus in the bosom position of the Father having all the knowledge he'd yearned for previously, whereas the Rich Man (the WTS) would be in torment and spiritual darkness.

    What can I say? I'm Lazarus!


    BroMac posted Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:35:00 GMT(10/23/2011)

    Post 22 of 718
    Joined 10/13/2011


    i am 'new' to alot of this info so you lost me early on. lol. so i'll have to leave any response be it positive or critical to others.

    when, from this information do you place the babylonian destruction of Jerusalem?



      Confirm ...