5926_[(*??*)] 01 06 2030 [2014-04-06] -  Thanks to DreamWeaver this version is now recovered from the original crashed .htm version:

 

Från:          Tree of Life (c) Time [TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com]

Skickat:     Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:37 PM

Till:            'Ann OMaly'

Ämne:       SV: More ...

 

Without recourse. All Rights Reserved. Powerful Choices ©

Non-Negotiable. Private between the parties.

 

 

 

Adamah Republic ©

5930± 04 23 2026

 

Written on this Third Day,

the 23rd day of month #4, Tammuz 23

in the 5930th year, more or less, following the beginning recorded in Genesis 1

and in the 2026th year following the beginning recorded in Luke 1:26-33

 

[Tuesday, the 2nd day of the week, July 6 in the 2010th year of Caesar Tiberius

(per current Gregorian reckoning in Europe and elsewhere.)]

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Ann,

 

 

Thanks ever so much for your emails, your most valuable lessons for me, and, not least, your patience with me!

As you'll notice I'm changing the formatting of these mails for better readability. I hope you think so too... If so, you may wish to take advantage of my uploading these mails to my website for improved functionality of certain links, some of which don't allow me to return to the original link within the same document. You may or may not have a similar problem? Anyways...

Here we go again, continuing this our most exciting dialog...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Ann OMaly [mailto:anannomaly@yahoo.com]

Skickat: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:47 PM

Till: treeoflifetime@gmail.com

Ämne: More ...

 

 

 

Hi Gunnar

 

I see you're making some revisions to your page. I hope you don't mind me offering a few more comments and questions?

 

- I consider your comments and questions a tremendous gift of great value to me. Thank you! I praise the Lord of Hosts for sending you my way!

 

- Forgive me please for forgetting this 3rd mail of yours for a while! I read it soon after you sent it, but then, while working on the extensive considerations in consequence of your 2nd mail, I quite forgot about this 3rd mail of yours. It remains to be seen, (below,) how much I've taken to heart of it even while working on your 2nd mail... I was once again alerted to this 3rd mail of yours upon beginning to read your 4th...

 

 

At footnote 5 you say,

 

"With the possible exception of the word  behind, all of the words and Comments pertaining to line 1, obverse, now make sense to me in terms of April 22, 568 BCE. Yet, this requires that this 1st month is reckoned as having 31 lunar days... (!)"

 

 

Why 31 days? The Babylonians didn't have 31 day months (ah ha - possible explanation below under 'Footnote 24'). The tablet indicates 30 days on Line 8, and the observed lunar details and position on that line are consistent with the astro-program's.

 

- Well, maybe the Babylonians did or didn't have occasional 31 day months? Who knows? If indeed this VAT 4956 is potential proof of the fact that they did have an occasional 31 day month, then who are we to rely upon some modern time scholarly  authority to tell us otherwise? If, on the other hand they did not as a rule have any 31 day months, for whatever reason, then who is to say that there wasn't an exception to the rule some time or other? Say for instance that, after all, the job of the celestial observer was to be in charge of announcing the beginning of the month every month regardless of any other circumstances. Well, suppose this official announcer got out of commission and wasn't able to do his appointed job on that key first day of the job... Suppose he got sick and feverish even to the point of losing track of time for a day or two, for instance by means of “Coughing and a little risutu-disease...” Well, when he came to his wits again, not knowing that he had lost a day, wouldn't he do his very best and act upon his conviction not knowing his error of having missed a day. Thus he'd make his regular observation based upon his expectation; his record would reflect his disoriented state of mind, not by an admission of error of which he was unawares, but by the facts of his record... for later generations to discover... By the 26th of the month, the observer might find it strange that he wasn't able to observe the moon as expected, but being an honest man he simply did his job of recording both his expectation and his failure to make an observation. Perhaps, by reflecting upon this strange missed observation, the observer did realize his error before the end of the month, but being unable to correct or change any past records, he satisfied himself with a notation at the end of Month 2, that is, by means of that last portion of the end of Line 11, which is missing to us. Once he realized his error, he might even have made a note of that(?) such that, in effect, there would have been two days given the same number of the month and such that he'd number the day of the 3rd New Moon the 30th rather than the 31st as per his prior numbering of that 2nd month? That is, without resorting to such potentially deeper meaning of the word 'thirty' as I've previously alluded to. At any rate, why would he even make a record of that “Coughing and a little risutu-disease...” if that wasn't something affecting himself and thereby also potentially the tablet record? No doubt people were suffering from various illnesses without him making a record of such upon tablets such as this astronomical observation tablet? I for one do not find it too strange for an event like this to happen, do you?

 

- As to the tablet indicating, as you say, “30 days on Line 8, and the observed lunar details and position on that line are consistent with the astro-program's.” Well, as to the moon being 'thick' and as to 'earthshine,' both of those items may be applied to either May 22 or May 23, 568 BCE. Thus, those details are of no help for distinguishing between the 22nd and the 23rd. I commented on that in my prior mail... What does make a considerable distinction is the specific given by the words “4 cubits below β Berninorum.” So far as I can see, your alternative, re Pollux on the 22nd, is not a viable solution, at least not while sticking to the English translation... For more, please cf. this new revised footnote of mine!

 

 

About the terms 'behind,' 'in front of,' 'above' and 'below,' Sachs and Hunger's Introduction to ADT I (under the subheading 'Passing by Normal Stars' on p.22) says:

 

"Whenever the moon passed one of the Normal Stars ... its distance from that star is recorded. The moon may be 'above' or 'below' a star, or 'in front of' (i.e., to the west of) or 'behind' (i.e., to the east of) the star. The expressions 'in front of' and 'behind' are meant in relation to the daily rotation of the celestial sphere, not to the movement of the moon. If the moon seemed to be not exactly 'above' or 'below' a certain star, the observer added a remark about the amount by which the moon was still 'in front of' or 'behind' the star."

 

- Thanks for those words of clarifying 'east' and 'west' for me! That really helps! As the 'above' and 'below' however, I am impressed that those words, as used in VAT 4956, are generally applied relative to the horizon of the observer on Earth, and not relative to the celestial equator or the ecliptic. Or else, other than your moon vs. Pollux suggestion on May 22, 568 BCE, what other examples are you seeing on VAT 4956 that indicate another use of the words 'above' and 'below?'

 

 

Another query regarding the same footnote is to do with your chosen location on which to base the simulated observations. The tablet (and original observations) came from Babylonia (Iraq), however the sky shot you use (4/23/568 BC) is from Syria (!). I do see that a later sky shot (4/24 - Mars relative to Cancer) you used Baghdad - which is OK.

 

- Please see this link for more on this!

 

 

Footnote 10,

 

"the Moon was about 2 cubits, i.e. 15°, in front of the constellation Cancer ... "

 

According to the tablet, what the moon was '2 cubits in front of' can only be conjectured as the rest of the line is lost. Additionally, Sachs and Hunger understand the cubit as being 1 cubit = 2° (see again their ADT I Introduction under the subheading 'Passing by Normal Stars,' p.22). Scholars have also thought 1 cubit equaled 2.5°, and the latest scholarship I know of puts the value at 2.2°. Therefore, the moon was more likely '2 cubits in front of' some star in Gemini.

 

- Yes, thanks ever so much for those words, which set me straight on so much, and which most of my work behind my prior mail to you was all about! As to the specifics of the above, please see this link to my new revised footnote replacing the one you quoted!

 

 

Footnote 12, Line 3's discrepancy and my notes on it:

 

The term on Line 3, "GÌR ár šá UR-A" literally means 'Rear Foot of the Lion' so was part of the Babylonian equivalent of Leo, even though that star is now assigned to Virgo as beta Virginis.

 

'Night of the 9th' was April 30, 568 BCE. The moon was nearer gamma Virginis (3° or 1.5 cubits in front of it) than beta Virginis (more than 11° or nearly 6 cubits behind it). A poor fit. If beta was mistaken for gamma (Prof. Hunger thought it a possibility*), it would be a very good fit for the 9th.

 

However, the other possibility is that '9th' is a scribal error for '8th' (April 29). If that assumption is correct, we have an excellent fit. The moon was 1 cubit (2°) in front of beta Virginis.

 

- Have you ever counted how many “scribal errors” that are necessary in order to sustain this false assumption re “beta Virginis” truly being the object referenced by the Akkadian words behind “The moon was 1 cubit (2°) in front of beta Virginis?” Cf. my footnote under this link!

 

* See C.B.F. Walker, 'Babylonian Observations of Saturn During the Reign of Kandalanu' in Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, ed. Swerdlow, p. 72-3.

 

- Thanks for that valuable reference and for making it available to me! Here are some notes while I'm reading it through:

 

1. I'd be mighty happy to get access to the Venus observations during Ammisaduqa (1702-1682 BCE per Huber's chronology.) For instance:

a. Schoch, C. (1928). Astronomical and Calendrical Tables, in Langdon, S. and Fotheringham, J. K., The Venus Tablet of Ammizaduga, 94-109 and Tables I-XVI.

b. Van der Waerden, B. L. (1943). Die Berechnung der ersten und letzten Sichtbarkeit von Mond und Planeten und die Vunustafeln des Ammisaduqa. Ber. d. Math. - Phys. Kl. d. Sächs. Ak. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig 94 (1943), 23-56.

2. Ditto for earliest surviving Astronomical Diaries from 652/651 BCE.

3. Re the proverbial three fingers pointing back to establishment scholars and their consequent error in mixing up γ Virginis and β Virginis:

 12''... In the standard list of Normal Stars it is β Virginis, which is known as GIR ar sa A (so already in the Diary for -567, written GIR ar sa UR-A). I fact the calculated location of the planet at first visibility is considerably to the east of β Virginis, and just behind γ Virginis. But γ Virginis is known in the Diaries as DELE sa IGI ABSIN. Why should our text refer at all to GIR egir sa UR-A, and what is AN.GU.ME.MAR? H. Hunger pointed out to me some time ago that in the Diary for -567 GIR ar sa UR-A (β Virginis) is written by mistake for γ Virginis, and wondered whether the same mistake had happened here. He also pointed out that on this occasion Jupiter is also in the vicinity, and wondered if there could be some way of bringing together AN.GU.ME.MAR and the traditional writing of Jupiter as dSAG-ME-GAR. It seems problematic, but I have no better solution.

(Swerdlow, N. M., Editor, Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, Chapter 3 by C. B. F. Walker, Babylonian Observations of Saturn during the Reign of Kandalanu, p. 73.)

4. I may wish to work through the Saturn observations of 647-627 BCE similarly as I am now doing VAT 4956...

 

 

Footnote 18 about the viewing location possibly being a high mountain peak - it's worth knowing that Babylon was set on a flat plain - the nearest mountain range (Zagros) being about 200 miles away. The ancients would, however, have used high buildings to get a good view of the sky.

 

- Thanks! If, indeed, the observation point is in that area, which does make some sense!, there may be quite a flat and ideal horizon, given that, as you say, “the nearest mountain range (Zagros) being about 200 miles away” . Yet, an elevated observation point is still needed in order to observe objects as far below the horizon as some of the observations of VAT 4956 seem to indicate! Perhaps I could figure out a way of determining, from VAT 4956, just how high such an observation point must be? My hesitancy in so doing before now has been my questions re the exact observation point. Yet, when I think of it, if there are such measured observations re both the east and the west horizons, then that should suffice... as well as roughly confirm the longitude of the observation point, e.g. re the Baghdad area vs. the el Bab area!

 

Footnote 19 - 'one god was seen with the other' - this is an old idiom for, as you indicated, observing both the sun and moon on opposite horizons close to full moon.

 

My notes:

 

The 14th corresponds to May 5/6, 568. As this 'two gods' measurement was the na kind, it was taken the morning of May 6.

 

Sunrise was at 5.14 (local time)

 

Moonset was at 5.29.

 

Time difference: 15 minutes or 3.75° -  an excellent fit.

 

 

- Again, thanks Ann for helping me discover all that while working through your first email to me!

 

 

Footnote 24 and thinking the 1st month had 31 days yet it began on April 22 and the 2nd month began on May 22 - I think you've probably counted wrong - it's definitely 30 days. Month III, therefore, will also start when the tablet says it did, where day 30 (of Month II) = day 1 (of Month III), instead of you having to deduct a day.

 

- No, Ann! The difference is due to my not agreeing with you that “the 2nd month began on May 22.” I am convinced that, per the observer's record, the 2nd month began at sunset May 23, 568 BCE! It seems to me that your basis for May 22 is based ultimately upon little more than assumptions of less than precise observations by the VAT 4956 observer and an, at that time, not yet originated default of 30 day maximum for any given lunar month, or else, if indeed there was such a default, your non-discovery as yet that the observer may have suffered a lapse of time - lost one day of reckoning - in consequence of his "risutu-disease..." that is, a different species of “blaming the scribe...”

 

 

At footnote 25 you ask,

 

"What does 'while the sun stood there' mean? Does it mean that the New Moon crescent became visible while the sun was still visible above the horizon at sunset?"

 

The answer is, yes it does. The Introduction to ADT I (just above the 'Passing by Normal Stars' subheading on p.22) confirms this:

 

"Sometimes the crescent is bright enough to be seen while (part of) the sun is still above the horizon; this is expressed by the remark ina ana šamáš GUB IGI '(the moon) became visible while the sun stood there'."

 

- Again, Ann, thanks for helping me discover that too while working through your first email to me!

 

 

Footnote 26 - "I have not been able to identify anything named 'Berninorum' " - there's a misprint on your page. It's meant to be Geminorum (the genitive of Gemini) as you'll see when you look at the Translation scan you link to :-D

 

- Wow, thanks Ann! That one sure adds strength to your argument re Pollux and β ....inorum, doesn't it?!!!

 

- Yet, even that very strong argument of yours - and that error of mine - is not sufficient evidence, so far as I can see presently, to overcome the even stronger evidence of the observer's notations re Mars and Praesepe on the 3rd and the 5th days, that is, on May 5 and May 7, 568 BCE.

 

- As to “Mercury [rose[1]] in the west behind the [little] Twins,” I do not see a sufficient difference between our discordant days, yours vs. mine, in order to favor either your point of view or mine...

 

- As to "Venus was balanced[2] 1 cubit 4 fingers above α Leonis…" Well, going your way with this adds strength to your argument about 'balanced above' being a reference to the celestial North Pole. On the other hand, the angular separation [as used for calculating an exact definition for the cubit] between them doesn't change much from one day to the other. That is, your option results in 1 cubit = 1.33° versus my option 1 cubit = 1.22°. The distance between the Moon and Pollux (β Geminorum) on May 22nd at the time the latter became visible on the sky was 7° 30' 24” or 5.7 [1.33°] cubits, or, conversely, corresponding to 1 cubit = 1.88°. If I were to test the limits of these measurements, let's say by considering that 1 cubit + 4 fingers are certainly more than 1 cubit and certainly less than 1 cubit + 8 fingers, that is certainly between 1-1.3 cubits, then I get 1 cubit = (1.16° - [1.22°] - 1.55°.) Going through the same procedure for the Moon / Pollux distance, while considering that distance certainly being between 3-5 cubits, I find the outside limits of possibility for that measurement being 1 cubit = (1.50° - [1.88°] - 2.50°.) Thus I notice that if the  4 cubit measurement is considered rounded down from a more exact value very slightly less than 5, while the  1 cubit 4 fingers measurement is considered rounded up from an even more exact value of less than 1 cubit + 1 finger, then yes, this would seem to be perhaps possible??? However, it seems quite unlikely to me that such contradictory rounding practices would be used. I would find it more likely if both had been rounded either up OR down from the next extreme lower or higher limit, but not both. Alternatively, if the rounding would be in terms of half the distance to the next higher or lower value, I would also have found such rounding reasonable and acceptable. As it is, I find this option highly questionable indeed! - I do see yet another possibility along this line of thinking though. There is another Gemini star, which also has the advantage of being even closer to the ecliptic, thus being even more attractive for being considered a Normal Star. That star is κ Gemini, which is located in almost exactly the same direction from the Moon as is β Gemini (Pollux.) Its distance is 3° 52' 25” which corresponds to 1 cubit = 0.97° = (0.70° - [0.97°] - 1.29°.) In this instance it would have been necessary to round up from about 3.3 cubits to reach 1 cubit = 1.17° while it would have been necessary to round the “1 cubit 4 fingers” down from about 1 cubit 8 fingers to reach 1.16°. Thus, once again I discover the same rounding problem as with β Gemini, only in the opposite direction. Perhaps even more importantly however is finding out what exactly the Akkadian words translated “β Geminorum” actually mean. Perhaps this may be gleaned from ADT I or from some other source? Per ADT I the Akkadian words for β Geminorum are “MAŠ-MAŠ ár” and the meaning of those Akkadian words are given as “The rear Twin star” (cf. ADT I, within the list entitled Normal Stars.) Unfortunately, in line 8 obverse of VAT 4956, the only portion of “MAŠ-MAŠ ár” that I see is “MAŠ.” Indeed, that word is preceded by “ár” which per ADT I is part of γ Geminorum, so translated, per ADT I, from the Akkadian words “MAŠ-MAŠ šá SIPA.” Seeing also that the very similar looking word “MÁŠ” is also part of the Akkadian name for the Goat Fish constellation, I find reasons for doubting that “β Geminorum” in line 8 obverse is indeed a correct translation. Thus, in the end, I am far from being convinced that any of the Gemini stars are intended by the Akkadian words of line 8, which of course allows me to lean much more heavily upon the witness of the record pertaining to Mars and Praesepe on the 3rd and 5th days, and thus also to conclude that May 23, 568 BCE is by far the more likely date for day 1 of Month 2...

 

- As to “The 26th,[3] {moonrise to sunrise} 23°:[4] I did not observe the moon.[5] ” As discussed elsewhere, I find that problem solved by recognizing that, while sick from “Coughing and a little risutu-disease,” the observer had lost a day in his own reckoning of time - this being reflected, at least, in his numbering of days #1 through #26 of month II.

 

- Finally, as to "Month III... the 30th...," as also discussed elsewhere, I find that problem resolved either by the observer having, by that time, finally recognized and corrected his error, or else by finding a deeper meaning in the word translated “the 30th.”

 

 

- To sum up, I still find the, by far, more likely scenario being portrayed by the observer and scribe of VAT 4956 having its beginning with Month II, day 1, at sunset May 23, 568 BCE - and not the day before.

 

 

Footnote 29 - "The day beginning in the evening of May 23, 568 BCE." Of course, you have now revised Month II, Day 1 to May 22.

 

- No Ann, I haven't! From where do you get the idea that I “have now revised Month II, Day 1 to May 22?”

 

 

Footnote 35 - Month II, Day 10 is actually May 31.

 

- I recognize that, thus far, in your book, it is... But not in mine! That is, unless you're by now beginning to come around to my way of thinking... in pursuit of my above considerations. Are you???

 

- Or, in the end, will it be that I am the one that suddenly realize the obvious basis for my error thus far...??? For a few seconds I thought so, when above you pointed to that error of mine in having written 'Berninorum' where it should have been, from the very beginning, 'Geminorum...'

 

- So far none of us know for sure to what we'll come re this one particular, do we? I've certainly come around to your way of thinking before, perhaps I'll do so again even in this particular. One thing I know for sure, at this point in time I've not found sufficient reasons for so doing. That is, in the face of all the evidence convincing me otherwise...

 

- I do hope you're recognizing that I'm doing my best towards seeing things your way... and towards finding the strengths of the points that I recognize that you are showing me...

 

 

Footnote 36 says,

 

"Obvious translation error: Nothing rises in the west! Mercury was only visible in the west and was setting. On the 10th day, i.e. the evening of June 1, 568 BCE, Mercury is seen as setting at the same time as the last part of the main body of the lower twin has set behind the horizon. Thus Mercury is referenced as setting 'behind the [little] Twins.'"

 

It wasn't a translation 'error.' Yes it was an interpolation to add sense to what was there, but you'll see on your astro-program simulation that,

 

a) it was around the time of Mercury's first appearance in the western sky after a period of invisibility,

 

b) over the following days Mercury would appear to 'rise' or get higher in the sky before 'falling' back toward the sun and disappearing again.

 

So for the translators to insert 'rose' isn't totally 'off the wall.' The important thing is that Mercury was a western object as the tablet said.

 

- Wow, another pearl of truth that I wasn't aware of before! Another stain of guano being washed from off my mind... Another instance of you showing me my blindness and prior error... That is, my misapplying the simple word 'rose' upon an irrelevant time perspective. Thanks for this very valuable treasure that you sent me before and which only now hit home, that is, upon toying with my "astro-program simulation..." per your suggestion!

 

- Those different dimensions of the word 'rise/rose' reminds me or the use of certain words used in the beginning of Genesis 1, most particularly the use of the Hebrew word behind the English word 'earth...' And, perhaps more importantly, re the most important, yet forgotten or repressed, dimensions of the Hebrew word behind the English 'heaven(s).'

 

Also, just for your information, the Little Twins are not the same as the Great Twins (principally alpha and beta Geminorum - compare line 8: 'MASH-TAB GAL') and there are differing opinions as to what stars constituted the Little Twins. Some scholars believe the Little Twins were lambda and xi Gem., while some later scholarship favors zeta and lambda Gem. Either way, Mercury was was behind or east of those stars at that time.

 

- Indeed, the Akkadian words "MAŠ-TAB..." of line 8, and the corresponding words "MAŠ-T[AB..." of line 10 could well represent the very same celestial object, or isn't that quite possible? Or aren't the bracketed words all insertions of late editor's, and based upon all the assumption of their schools of thought?

 

- Furthermore, isn't it true that, just as with the word 'rose' above, so also with the word 'behind' in the very same sentence and in the very same sense and dimension of time as you just taught me above?!!! That is, isn't it true that, just as the record reads, “Mercury [rose in the west behind the [little] Twins Venus?” Cf. this link to my footnote that is now being revised accordingly!

 

- Thanks... for thus adding even more powerful ammunition in favor or May 23, 568 BCE being the 1st day of the 2nd month! ;)

 

- After all, when the  scholars are obviously not in agreement one with the other re some particular, doesn't that also mean that, at the very least, all of them but one are in error re that particular?!! Thus, why even try following in their pursuit, even any one of them?

 

 

Footnote 40:

 

"Alpha Leonis aka. Regulus, is too close for being the star here referenced, I believe Omikron Leonis is at the perfect distance and in a perfect direction for fitting the record!"

 

 

Ayyaru 18 would correspond to June 8. The tablet says Venus was balanced 1.167 cubits* (2.333°) above or north of Regulus. According to my astro-programs it was about 0.75 cubit (1.5°) above the star. A reasonable fit.

 

* According to the ADT Vol.I Introduction, 1 finger is 1/24th of a cubit.

 

- Yes, as you'll notice that quoted line of mine has been corrected in accord with my best current understanding... And then corrected again!

 

- “Ayyaru 18 would correspond to June 8???” Are you still sure of that? :)

 

- “1.167 cubits* (2.333°...) 0.75 cubit (1.5°...) A reasonable fit...” Again based upon little more than an assumption of observer error and lack of precision, isn't it? Cf. above please!

 

 

Footnotes 41 - 44. If you continue to follow through with the correct dates, you'll see that Ayyaru 26 was June 16/17. It was common toward month-end for the ancients to record a morning moonrise to sunrise interval (called 'KUR') before the moon's conjunction with the sun. Although the KUR sign is not given on the tablet, it is likely this is what the measurement of 23° refers to. The line goes on to say that the moon was not observed, thus we must have a calculation here - and they did make calculations when the weather prohibited direct observation as is indicated on other similar tablets.

 

 

June 17, a.m.

 

Moonrise: 03.16 (local time)

 

Sunrise: 04.48

 

Time difference: 92 minutes or 23°

 

- Yes, I certainly agree that on June 17, 23° is the expected value as also calculated by the observer. The fact is that for some reason he did not see it. The fact is that the observer made no record of bad weather. If the observer had lost a day of reckoning because of sickness from “Coughing and a little risutu-disease,” the record made on June 18, 568 BCE, would be only natural and expected, or don't you agree with that? Yes, if I am the one in error on this, then most likely you are correct about your assumption re inclement weather, but don't forget, yours is only an assumption, and, as such, it cannot possibly override the strength of the two Praesepe observations - at least not in my book!

 

 

Footnotes 53.

 

"Seems to me as though the “2 ½” should be “½” only? An error in translation? Or, additional evidence for an at that time quite recent interplanetary catastrophe, that is, such that the path of the Moon was not quite where we would now reckon upon it being? Considering our difficulty with the translation, I believe the reason for the problem is more likely in the eyes of the beholders... "

 

Nope. No translator error, no Velikovskian planetary chaos (!). The modern simulation is consistent with the tablet's statement when we know how many degrees make a cubit.

 

- Yes, this time the proverbial three fingers were right again! I was the one in error re the length of the cubit. That note was written while I still believed that 1 cubit = 7°. Not so now... as you've seen above under your comments to my footnotes #10 and #26!

 

- And yes, I quite agree with you that my suggestion re a  Velikovskian planetary chaos was a bit farfetched as an explanation for that particular problem of mine.

 

As you say at footnote 52, Simanu 8 would be the evening of June 27. According to one of my programs (Alcyone Ephemeris), at 8 p.m. the moon was about 3° or 1.5 cubits below (south of) beta Librae. SkyViewCafe shows the distance was about 4° or 2 cubits below the star.

 

- Cf. also my new footnote which is based on my Starry Night Backyard astro-program.

 

 

Footnote 57 says,

 

"Notice: If this  solstice is indeed a correct observation and a correct translation, then the summer solstice in 568 BCE occurred on June 28, 568 BCE, and not as now, that is, on June 21 each year!

 

This may be considered additional evidence of recent interplanetary catastrophes at that time! Cf. footnotes #31 & #34!"

 

No. It's considered evidence for the effects of precession and the difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars. In -567, the summer solstice was on June 29 (Julian). Back in -1000, the summer solstice is calculated to be on July 2 (Julian); 1 AD it was June 24 (Julian); 1580 AD it was June 11 (Julian - note: 2 years before the Gregorian calendar reform which made it suddenly jump to June 22).

 

- Thanks for alerting me to a fuller understanding of that reality of the precession! As a matter of fact, in my last prior email to you I had given first priority to a question regarding that specific re the solstice date. Then somehow I came to notice its reality by watching - on my astro-program - the sun's journeying along the ephemeris on that date... Thus it happened that I came to realize what that was all about - and my question to you re that solstice was no longer necessary...

 

- Thanks very much for waking me up to that further reality re June 11, 1580 CE! Such details are important for me to realize!

 

- Please notice that the erroneous idea re "this "solstice..." be[ing...] additional evidence of recent interplanetary catastrophes at that time..." is mine and mine alone! It has no bearing upon the works of Velikovsky!

 

- I don't know if you have noticed that several of the major calendars began their reckoning of time around 750 BCE? There is considerable evidence that the reason for this is that there were sudden changes in the length of the month and/or the year at that time...

 

- In this connection it strikes me that the Olympic calendar begins its year with July 1 and that the Roman calendars begins its year with January 1. Recognizing that these dates correspond to the summer solstice and winter solstice of the year 750± BCE, it seems to me only reasonable that those points in time, July 1 and January 1, were chosen as the beginning of the year because of the fact that that was the natural beginning of the solar year at the time. Given that each of those three calendars were initiated in very much the same year, or close to it, it seems they all must have had a common incentive for doing so, whatever that incentive may have been...

 

- Also, considering this thing about the precession: Clearly the effect of the precession is that the seasons are moving on our calendars much the same as they did before February 29th was introduced to prevent that. In 1582 11 days were introduced in order to make up for a related accumulated error of about 1600 years, but in addition to that error we have the error that is due to the precession, which in not being corrected for. That error amounts to about 9 days in 2,750 years. Do you have any idea as to why no effort is made to correct for that error? The only calendars that make up for that error are the ones that base their month #1 upon a seasonal event, e.g. the Scriptural calendar, which is attaching month #1 with the ripening of the barley, that is the aviv, in the month named Abib or Aviv.

 

- Anyways, what's the best and easiest way for exactly determining the time of solstice for each year? Is there an easy way of doing that using my astro-software? I've been toying with this a little, but I'm not sure I've been finding the best way of so doing...

 

 

Footnote 59:

 

"Although, indeed, the moon was 'balanced' almost straight above α Scorpii, aka. Antares, at 1:10 AM, when Antares was setting below the western horizon, but that is by no means the 'first part of the night,' and so far as I can tell the distance then was only 1.5 cubits, that is, about 9 degrees angular distance... More likely, to me, is λ Scorpii, aka. Shaula, which was indeed located 3.5 cubits, i.e. 25.5 degrees, straight below the moon at 8:09 PM on June 29, 568 BCE!"

 

My notes:

 

On Simanu 10 (the 'first part of the night' of June 29 at 10 p.m.), the moon was 5.5° or 2.75 cubits above (north of) alpha Scorpii - a little behind as well as 'above,' but still consistent with the tablet.

 

- Thanks to your alerting me to a much more correct understanding of the cubit, my revised footnote now reads quite different from before!

 

- Thanks also for sharing your note above with me! It helped finally making sense out of this truly being a reference to Antares (α Scorpii.) Cf. the last paragraph of that revised footnote of mine!

 

- I've noticed that the observations recorded on VAT 4956 are typically made while the stars recorded are first lightening up on the sky at nightfall. This makes sense also in terms of the Jewish/Scriptural practice of observing the beginning of the new day in terms of the oncoming shadows of darkness and the end of the old day in terms of the lingering daylight still being seen. Indeed, I am convinced that most of the ancient interest in exact reckoning of time was based upon the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, this practice, as evidenced upon VAT 4956, makes a whole lot of sense to me!

 

 

Footnote 61:

 

"As best I can tell α Leonis and Mars, being quite close to one another, were first becoming visible when, at the time of sunset, the two of them were 2/3 cubits above the horizon behind which they were soon to set? Or could this possibly be further evidence for an interplanetary catastrophy?"

 

Not at all. The line simply says "Mars was 2/3 cubits above ... " what was taken to be alpha Leonis (that part's damaged). We already know Mars passed through Cancer at the beginning of Month II, so there is only one place Mars could be on July 1 and indeed it was 1° (0.5 cubit) above that star.

 

- Yes, as you say “We already know Mars passed through Cancer at the beginning of Month II, so there is only one place Mars could be on July 1.” Once I realized that I recognized the impossibility suggested by my question “Or could this possibly be further evidence for an interplanetary catastrophy?” That is, at least since that particular date in 568 BCE there has not been any interplanetary catastrophe involving Mars or Earth.

 

- You may wish to review my revised footnote corresponding to the one above quoted... Especially re the exact length of the cubit and the precision in this measurement as used by the ancient observer of this event.

 

 

Footnote 64:

 

"Notice!!!: This is a rather perfect description of a quite brief, very unique, event at sunset, where the Moon, while almost eclipsing the Sun, is no doubt contributing to an unusually quick darkness such that both the moon and the brightest star, Regulus, aka. Alpha Lionis, are becoming visible while very close to the sun!!! A very notable event indeed!!! This event happened at about 7:15 PM on July 18, 568 BCE, that is, on the 29th day of the 3rd month!"

 

There's nothing unusual here, rather a translator's presupposition, which turns out to be an error. Line 18 is badly damaged. The reconstruction of the illegible signs at the beginning - "[ ... the moon was be]low ..." - is Prof. Hunger's mistake based on a guess (he's aware of this and agrees with the conclusion that follows). In the transliteration and on both photo and drawing, the section before a partial sign for 'below' is completely broken.

 

- "Nothing unusual..." Yes, I made a mistake by not noticing that my astro-software was set to display the moon enlarged upon my screen. When correcting the setting to a normal sized moon it becomes obvious that no partial eclipse was visible from that horizon...

 

- Prof. Hunger's translation may possibly still be correct... Notice my items #2 and #3 in this revised footnote of mine!

 

- Are you referring to the same "translation...," "photo...," and "drawing…" that the links that I've attached to your words above do?

 

The moon had already passed beta Virginis earlier in the month (the same applies for your idea about Regulus), so there's no way it could have been near that star later in the month as well. It would only pass the star again early next month...

 

- Yes, I quite agree, but it could be a record pertaining to the next month, could it not?...

 

However, on what would have been Simanu 16 (July 5), Venus was below beta Virginis. As one respected Assyriologist confirms,

 

"Obv. 18 [ ... sha]p MULxKUR sha TIL GÌ[R UR.A ...] is in the translation, according to the astronomical finding, to be amended ..[... Venus was be]low ...', not ..[... the moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [Lion's] foot [....]', whereby the contradiction is also resolved that the moon was said to have been observed twice near the same fixed star, here beta Virginis, within the same Babylonian month, see Obv. 14 (III 5 = 23. June -567) with Obv. 18 (III [16] = 5. July -567). - J. Koch, JCS 49, 1997, page 84, footnote 7 [translated from the German].

 

- Thanks for adding that insight and that reference! I wasn't aware of that one before. Cf. my newest revised footnotes at this link!

 

 

 

That's all I have for the obverse side. I hope it makes sense to you.

 

- Indeed it makes sense to me, and as you've noted, with a few important exception, I have no problem accepting that which you are sharing with me!

 

- Thanks ever so much!!!

 

 

 

Blessings,

 

Ann

 

May the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Truth, bless each our families and homes as we continue pursuing these most important realities,

 

Gunnar ©

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without recourse. All Rights Reserved. Powerful Choices ©