Cross Correlating Recorded History Surrounding the New Testament Time Period with Exactly Dated Astronomical Events

Statement of belief: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)

Updated 5925_[(*??*)]08 27 2029 [2012-12-12]

Updated 5926_[(*??*)]04 07 2030 [2014-07-07]

Edit 5927_[(*??*)]13 16 2031 [2015-04-04] – Adding a link to view the lunar eclipse of King Saul at En-Dor before the last pole-shift.

Edit 5938_{[v2016-12-14-21:32]} 04 08 2035 [2019-06-13] – Cf. rows #0 - #2 of the table below!

Addition 5942_[_{v2016-12-14-21:32}_]09 23 2039 [2022-12-18 evening] – Modified the page title, and added six quotes to the 1833 Shooting Star Event.

Addition 5942_[_{v2016-12-14-21:32}_]09 24 2039 [2022-12-19 evening] – Added an image to the 1833 Shooting Star Event.

Minor edit 5942_[_{v2016-12-14-21:32}_]09 28 2039 [2022-12-29] – Starry Night Download link, and a link to Professor Silliman’s Journal.

Addition 5942_[_{v2016-12-14-21:32}_]01 12 2039 [2023-05-03] – Adding the unidentified solar eclipse suggested by the engraving on Assurnasirpal II’s stele.

Extensive update 5968_{[v2023-12-04]}08 08 2040 [Mon 2024-11-11] – Revising and adding multiple items between 545 BCE - 880 BCE. Cf. last prior versions: Uploaded, not previously uploaded.

Continued extensive update 5968_{[v2023-12-04]}10 18 2040… [Sun 2025-01-19…] – Revising and adding multiple items between 2128 BCE - 545 BCE. Split this file into 3 parts. Cf. last prior version

Cross Correlating the

Recorded History

of Ancient History, including the OT&NT Era vs.

Exactly Dated Astronomical Events

Part 1 of 3

A listing of 109+ celestial and 5 other events (the earliest one dated potentially to 2128 BCE: one dated to Apr 21, 1494 BCE; one dated May 7, 1431 BCE; one dated most likely to March 23, 1028 BCE that is being matched to the death of Saul, King of Israel; one dated in 588 BCE, one of two key anchor points for the Olympic Calendar; eleven in the Greek era; and the remainder mostly from 222 BCE thru 212 CE.) All matched to historical records tied to the reigns of various Roman Emperors and other dated historical events.

Abstract:

Below is a table listing a number of solar eclipse observations prior to two or even three of the latest pole shifts (think Ice Ages!), twelve (12) comets, seventeen (17) solar eclipses, twenty (20) lunar eclipses, one (1) comet eclipse, five (5) meteor showers, one (1) unexplained 16 hour long darkness over the New England area, two (2) earth quakes, one (1) or possibly two volcanic eruptions, and one (1) dated lunar zodiac constellation, each of which has been matched to key historical events from 1431 BCE, through 1886 CE. And, in addition to that there are the many and numerous celestial events recorded on the Babylonian clay tablet VAT4956… Based upon these matches, plus a large number of matches based upon the New Moons of the biblical calendar as referenced in the New Testament and by Josephus, I cannot avoid concluding that…

It is time for a paradigm shift re the dating of historical events, not only surrounding the beginning of the Christian era, but re most of ancient history prior to 300± CE!

In order to arrive at a more correct and reliable chronology of history many dates presently considered well known and well established by conventional historians - though without matches to celestial events described in historical records - must be shifted back in time between five and fifteen years relative to the dates usually provided within conventional historical works. This applies to all the events in the New Testament as well as to the regnal periods of the Roman Emperors.

Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus constitute three apparently independent witnesses agreeing with one another perfectly in most instances, while also being more or less concurrent in time with the events here described.

Josephus is describing a number of exactly dated events which presently seem to have been nailed down fairly solidly upon the cross of exact astronomical tables of solar and lunar eclipses and phases of the moon. Josephus is referencing one important lunar eclipse (9 BCE) and one comet (54 CE) within the period of time here considered.

One historical fingerprint with many particulars is the period of time surrounding Herod the Great’s reign.

I gratefully acknowledge the tremendous work done by Ronald L. Conte Jr. in identifying perhaps half of the within correlations between historical and celestial events, or most of the 18 or so correlations that I was aware of when I began this article. One part of the within work consists merely in consolidating the astronomical events already identified by Ronald L. Conte Jr., and in further establishing and revising the exact dates based [primarily] upon Josephus’ works and upon the available quotes from Suetonius and Tacitus. Another most important part of the within work is based [primarily] upon the most reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the Textus Receptus, and the references to time as there specified. Further verification has been found in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, which is a late transcript of an original Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew from which the Greek manuscripts of Matthew are obviously translated (cf. this link!)

For additional detail of the below table please click here!.

For a listing of dated New Testament events and the supporting calculations and references click here.

For a listing of the starting and ending dates of the twelve Roman Emperors from Julius Caesar through Domitian, and the supporting calculations and references, click here.

For an outline of the events of the War and the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the supporting calculations and references, click here.

In contrast to data presented in the table below, please notice the glaring absence of any significant correlations between exactly dated celestial events and conventional Roman and New Testament chronologies.

NOTICE: To see the movies you may need to download the free Quicktime 6.0 or later software. Or else go get your copy of the Starry Night software and make your own studies of the starry skies as I did mine.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

What:

When:

References and Quotes:

Considerations re the exact identification of the first and earliest solar eclipse recorded in the Chinese literature.

At the time of the astronomical New Moon within October or early November, and probably between 2200 – 1800 BCE, judging from the assessment of other authors. Studying the eclipses within this time frame, I find two or possibly three possible matches with the ancient Chinese annals:

1) The Oct 12, 2128 BCE solar eclipse was not seen from pre-Joshua’s Long Day China, unless SN8 calculations are off. Alternatively, if the location of the observer was somewhere along the southern coast of current Alaska along his path of migration westwards to China, this eclipse would be a perfect match to the Chinese record. Possible, but not likely eclipse.

2) The Nov 28, 1888 BCE solar eclipse would have been visible as an annular eclipse along a narrow path within the (current) boundaries of China, across north east China as currently located, as viewed from locations along that path in pre-pole shift #1 China. However, the Sun of this eclipse was in Sagittarius rather than in Scorpii and the constellation Fang. Astronomical New Moon #1 would then have been the (pre-pole shift #1 fall) Apr 5, 1888 BCE New Moon if the eclipsing (spring) Nov 28, 1888 BCE New Moon was reckoned as #9. If the eclipsing moon, Fang, was reckoned as Moon #4 then the corresponding Moon #1 would have been Aug 30, 1888 BCE. This apparent discrepancy re the constellation Fang/Scorpii vs the Sagittarius eclipsed Sun could be understood as an overdue intercalation month. That is, causing this eclipse Nov 28, 1888 BCE Moon to be (mis-)labeled Fang rather than being labeled as one of the constellations associated with the prior month #3. The spring vs fall issue remains unresolved at this time.

3) The Oct 7, 1829 BCE total solar eclipse as visible from pre-pole shift #1 China. Defines a large portion of the boundary between China and Mongolia (as presently defined). Good fit provided the calendar year was at that time reckoned as beginning in the seventh month, as do the Jewish, Hebrew and Biblical calendar years even to this day. The eclipse maximum was fairly distant from Erlitou.

Of the above 1) – 3) alternatives, I find that 1), a pre-Joshua’s Long Day, pre-pole shift #2, option, is unlikely, while 2) and 3), both of which are pre-pole shift #1 options, remain the more likely options, more so # 3).

Quote from The Present Status of Chinese Study of Solar Eclipses, by

Ma Liping, p. 5 of 9.

Quote from Examination of Early Chinese Records of Solar Eclipses, by Liu, Liu, and Ma, (June 2003), p. 55:

”In his first year, which was ke-ch’ow (26th of cycle, = BC 1951) when the emperor came to the throne, he dwelt in Chin-sin. In his 5^th year, in the autumn, in the 9^th month, on the day kang-seuh (47^th of cycle), which was the first day of the month, there was an eclipse of the sun, when he ordered the prince of Yin to lead the imperial forces to punish He and Ho (Legge 1893a 119)”

Notice the year recorded as “In his first year, which was ke-ch’ow (26^th of cycle… In his 5^th year… there was an eclipse of the sun…”, indicates that this eclipse occurred in the 30^th year of the 60-year Chinese calendar cycle.

If “Chin-sin” = Xinjiang (as suggested by Google), then the corresponding current coordinates for Chin-sin are 42±7 N 85±12 E. This would roughly correspond to pre-Joshua’s Long Day 45±7 N 150±12 E.

If “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?), which was then at 30N 180E (vs current 35N 113E).

The 30th year within each of eight consecutive 60-year Chinese calendar cycles:

From NASA’s website (which does not extend beyond 2000 BCE to “2043 BC, 2019 BC”):

Among the above four NASA-listed solar eclipses it is obvious that said “1970 BC, 1961 BC” (Wu Shouxian) eclipses point to the -1969 Nov 5 and -1960 Oct 26 eclipses respectively, both of which traversed China, as currently located, and both of which occurred “on the first day of late autumn” as reckoned if China had then been located on the Northern Hemisphere as it currently is.

And both of which (-1969 Nov 5 and -1960 Oct 26) occurred when the Sun was in “Scorpii”, as suggested on page 137 in Wen Shion Tsu (cf. below):

”β, δ, π, and ρ Scorpii” are the four stars aligned with one another at the top right of Scorpii. A “small constellation” indeed. This should be helpful for determining the correct solar eclipse…

Unfortunately, the NASA website is not providing any maps prior to 2000 BCE, i.e. for the above referenced eclipses in “2155 B.C… 2128 B.C… Oct 22, 2137 B.C… [and] May 7, 2165 B.C.” However, the needed corresponding data is available using astronomy software such as SN8, Starry Night Pro 8.

Notice that among the above quoted years 2155, 2128, 2137, 2165, 2073, 2019, 1970, and 1961 BCE, the one and only year that coincides with the 30^th(within the 60 year cycle) is 2128 BCE.

Notice, however, that in May the Sun is not anywhere near Scorpii, which constellation was at that time, May 7, 2165 BCE as far from the Sun as can be.

Notice that, according to the above table, the month named “Fang”, is the 4^th month in the Chinese calendar, and is the month when the Sun is in the Fang constellation, which occurs in Oct-Nov annually, implying that month #1 would fall in Jul-Aug, i.e. about the time of the summer solstice as observed from the Northern Hemisphere. But if the year is reckoned as beginning at the time of the winter solstice or in January or February, then Fang could easily be reckoned as the ninth month, as recorded in the quotes from Bamboo Annals (Legge 1893a: 119), cf. above.

Showing China’s pre-Joshua’s Long Day location at 25±15 N 180±15 E (yellow grid; vs current 30±15 N 110±15E (red grid))

Zhenxun = Earlitou (?) was at 30N 180E (vs current 35N 113E).

Google Earth map (current). The pin is marking China’s pre-Joshua’s Long Day location.

Moon’s closest conjunction, 0° 41’ 21”, on Oct 13, 2128 BCE 12:48 SN8 time, as viewed from the pre-Joshua’s Long Day location 30°N 180°E of Chin-sin, Zhenxun, Erlitou in China.

The following NASA-listed solar eclipses between 2000-1947 BCE would have been visible in China as located, at 25°±15° N 180°±15° E, prior to the Joshua’s Long Day pole shift, pole shift #2:

Adding to the above, the subsequent eclipse candidates within the 30^th year of a few 60-year cycles:

1888 BCE:

1828 BCE ±1 year:

1768 BCE ±1 year:

1708 BCE ±1 year:

Of the above 22+2+3+4+1=32 solar eclipses the following six or seven[1] occurred in Fang (Oct-Nov), the month when the Sun is in the constellation Scorpii, i.e. in the constellation Fang.

Map showing the extent of each of the first four of the last seven solar eclipses above.

Map showing the extent of each of the last three of the last seven solar eclipses above.

Clearly, if we had access to the corresponding solar eclipses all the way to 2200 BCE, we would find perhaps 4 x 7 = 28 additional solar eclipses fitting the recorded description of that first and earliest solar eclipse recorded in Chinese records. Accordingly, we definitely need more data re the details of said first solar eclipse, before we can know exactly when that solar eclipse occurred, and which of perhaps 7 + 28 = 35 possible solar eclipses is the correct one.

Notice however, that if the lunar month Fang was reckoned as the 4^th calendar month in China, then Moon #1 in the year of this first recorded Chinese solar eclipse would fall in July or early August. As such it would be closely associated with the summer solstice. Considering the traditions associated with the Mid-summer celebrations in Sweden, this would make a lot of sense, particularly when considering the mid-summer pole in terms of a tool for identifying the shortest shadow and the longest day of the year, and while considering also the folk dancing around said mid-summer pole, and the numerous wreaths typically hung on that pole as well as crowning the heads of the celebrating and dancing girls. All of that ever so reminiscent of the ever revolving events on the sky! Furthermore, using the mid-summer solstice, rather than the winter-solstice, as the beginning of the year, would make a lot of sense because people are naturally much more apt to be outside enjoying and celebrating in the summer than in the winter. Also, it should be easier to correctly determine the shortest shadow sharply outlined close to the mid-summer pole, than for determining the longest shadow furthest away from any pole, and therefore much less well defined shadow, which shadow may well be further obscured by a layer of snow on the ground at mid-winter times! Traditional calendar reckoning across the next following pole shift would then transfer the New Year from mid-summer to mid-winter, while soon forgetting the true origins of mid-summer celebrations as well as the original reasons for defining the beginning of the calendar year a certain way.

Conclusion:

My findings thus far seem to exclude all eclipses this side of 2000 BCE. Based on the above quoted words the year recorded as “In his first year, which was ke-ch’ow (26^th of cycle… In his 5^th year… there was an eclipse of the sun…”,” if this eclipse was a pre-Joshua’s Long Day, pre-pole shift #2 event, then I suggest that this eclipse occurred in Oct/Nov of one of the years 2008 BCE, 2068 BCE, 2128 BCE, or 2188 BCE. Studying those I find:

As shown above there was no solar eclipse in October 2008 BCE…

On Nov 4, 2008 BCE there was a solar eclipse, but the eclipse path did not cross either the current or the pre-Joshua’s Long Day, pole shift #2 location of China. Furthermore, as further considered below, by the time the eclipse reached the pre-pole shift #1 location of China, it was well past sunset, so this Nov 4, 2008 BCE eclipse was not visible from China.

As shown in the above two SN8 renditions of the closest conjunction between the Sun and the Moon, there was no Oct or Nov 2068 BCE solar eclipse.

As shown in the above two SN8 renditions of the closest conjunction between the Sun and the Moon, there was no Nov 2128 BCE solar eclipse.

As shown in the above three SN8 renditions of the closest conjunction between the Sun and the Moon, there was an Oct 12, 2128 BCE solar eclipse. As rendered in SN8, it did not, however, quite reach the pre-Joshua’s Long Day, pre-pole shift #2, nor the pre-pole shift #1, location of China. Accordingly, for this Oct 12, 2128 BCE eclipse to truly be the eclipse recorded in the Chinese annals, either 1) Chin-sin, the Chinese Capital, would have to have been then located about as far to the north east as Bering Strait, that is, somewhere along their path of migration from Caucasus to China via America. Or else, 2) if the SN8 rendition of this eclipse is not precise enough to correctly render the exact path of the solar eclipses that early in time. I find both of these options, 1) and 2), possible but perhaps unlikely.

As shown in the above four SN8 renditions of the closest conjunction between the Sun and the Moon, there was no Oct or Nov 2188 BCE solar eclipse. Accordingly, the Chin-sin, Xia, eclipse in Fang did not occur in 2188 BCE, nor in 2068 BCE.

Google Earth Pro map showing the current boundaries of China as projected upon the current earth coordinate system. Cf. the Oct 12, 2128 BCE SN8 map above.

Earth coordinates prior to the 1^st of 3 post-Diluvial pole shifts:

Seeing that Erlitou’s current coordinates are 34.7N 112.7E, based on the map above I find the corresponding pre-pole shift #1 coordinates 22S 164W.

“In his first year, which was ke-ch’ow (26^th of cycle… In his 5^th year… there was an eclipse of the sun…”. I suggest that this eclipse occurred in Oct/Nov of one of the years 1828 BCE, 1888BCE, 1948 BCE, 2008 BCE, 2068 BCE, 2128 BCE, or 2188 BCE. Among those seven years (26^th/1^st, 30^th/5^th±1 year) I find the following being visible from the 22S 164W location of pre-pole shift #1 “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?). Beginning with the ones available from the NASA solar eclipse pages:

I find that only these five on this side of 2000 BCE are available from the NASA website of solar eclipses. Out of these five only two occurred in the Oct-Nov Fang window, i.e. “-1887 Nov 28” and “-1828 Oct 07”.

Looking a little closer at these two++ eclipses I find:

Re the 1888 BCE eclipse:

SN8 appearance of the Nov 28, 1888 BCE annular solar eclipse at maximum as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?) at 22S 164W.

The Nov 28, 1888 BCE annular solar eclipse path as projected onto a current world map. The tip of the point at the bottom of the smaller window is at the location of pre-pole shift #1 “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?)…

In the two maps below, you’ll find yellow pins marking points along the Nov 28, 1888 BCE annular narrow path of totality. (The coordinates of at the yellow pins are derived from the central path of maximum annularity within the above solar eclipse map.)

The Nov 28, 1888 BCE solar eclipse would have been visible as a total eclipse along a path within the (current) boundaries of China, between the yellow pins in the above two maps, as viewed from locations along that path in pre-pole shift #1 China. However, the Sun and this eclipse was in Sagittarius rather than in Scorpii and the constellation Fang. Astronomical New Moon #1 would then have been the (fall) Apr 5, 1888 BCE New Moon if the eclipsing (spring) Nov 28, 1888 BCE Moon was reckoned as #9. If the eclipsing moon, Fang, was reckoned as Moon #4 then the corresponding Moon #1 would have been Aug 30, 1888 BCE. This apparent discrepancy re the constellation Fang/Scorpii vs the Sagittarius eclipsed Sun could be understood as an overdue intercalation month. That is, causing this eclipse Nov 28, 1888 BCE Moon to be (mis-)labeled Fang rather than being labeled as one of the constellations associated with the prior month #3 in this table:

At this point I have not pursued the spring vs. fall issue occurring in consequence of this being a Southern Hemisphere pre-pole shift #1 solar eclipse observation.

Re the 1829 BCE eclipse:

SN8 rendering of the Oct 7, 1829 BCE total solar eclipse (at maximum) as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?) at 22S 164 E.. Barely visible even as a partial eclipse at that location!

Map showing the Oct 7, 1829 BCE total solar eclipse path. Does not look close enough for being observed as “very dark sky” from anywhere close to the Erlitou location. However, still visible within China as a “very dark sky” along the border between China and Mongolia…

Tracing (in the five maps below) the totality path of the Oct 7, 1829 BCE total solar eclipse westwards from pre-pole shift #1 northeast China to Xinjiang in the west. (Or rather… eastwards… and southwest… China as then viewed from the Southern Hemisphere.)

Google Earth Pro map with yellow pins marking Erlitou and the path of the Oct 7, 1829 BCE total solar eclipse as visible from pre-pole shift #1 China. Notice how it defines a large portion of the boundary between China and Mongolia (as presently defined). Could that solar eclipse path possibly have been used for purposes of originally defining said boundary and/or for extending the claims of China westwards to the Xinjiang province? As part of the original westward (“westward” from our current point of view, “eastward” as viewed then and there in 1829 BCE) migration of the Chinese people from Caucasus via N. America and the Bering Strait? That is, as indicated by ancient Chinese maps of America, and as indicated also by the ancient Chinese characters identifying the days of the week?

The year matches, yes! That is, except that the Oct and Nov eclipses in the list of 37 Chinese solar eclipses were all reckoned as being placed at the end of the year [i.e. column A, in ScriptureChronoly.xls, matching up with columns I and K rather than with columns H and J as does this 1829 BCE solar eclipse]. In other words, provided the calendar year was at that time reckoned as beginning in the seventh month, as do the Jewish, Hebrew and Biblical calendar years. Notice, however, that all of said Oct/Nov eclipses in the 37 list were post-Hezekiah and thus autumn events on the Northern Hemisphere, while this 1829 BCE eclipse was a spring event viewed from the Southern Hemisphere. And what about this year being the year named Water Snake, as in the Chinese dragon? Seems like that symbol should have something of importance to do with the beginnings of the people of China and their claims to land and property?

Continuing with the pre-2000 BCE eclipses…

Re the 2008 BCE eclipse:

SN8 rendering of the Nov 4, 2008 BCE at maximum solar eclipse as viewed (below the horizon!) from pre-pole shift #1 “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?) at 22S 164W… Accordingly, there was no 2008 BCE solar eclipse visible from pre-pole shift #1 China. Double checking the extent of this solar eclipse, I find that at the time of this eclipse reaching closest to the pre-pole shift #1 location of China the (above horizon) visibility reached no further westwards than to about current 167 E, which location was far below the horizon at that time:

Re the 2068 BCE eclipse:

No Oct or Nov eclipse was visible in 2068 BCE. Cf. above!

Re the 2127 BCE eclipse:

SN8 rendering of the Oct 4, 2127 BCE at maximum solar eclipse as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?) at 22S 164W…

SN8 rendering of the Oct 4, 2127 BCE solar eclipse at sunset as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 “Chin-sin” = Zhenxun = Earlitou (?) at 22S 164W…

SN8 rendering of the Oct 4, 2127 BCE solar eclipse at sunset as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 Sun at 1 hour intervals…

SN8 rendering of the Oct 4, 2127 BCE solar eclipse at sunset as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 China at 3S 164 W…

…corresponding to current map location 16N 109E…

Yellow pins marking 1) Erlitou, and 2) the southernmost tip of China that would have been within the narrow belt of annular totality 1 hour prior to the local sunset. The annular totality would, however, not totally have darkened the Sun…

SN8 rendering of the Oct 4, 2127 BCE solar eclipse at sunset as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 China at 3S 164 W…

Re the 2188 BCE eclipse:

No Oct or Nov eclipse was visible in 2188 BCE. Cf. above!

Conclusion thus far:

Based on the criteria understood from the original Chinese records (or transcripts thereof), I’ve found a few possible contenders to being the one and only solar eclipse behind the Chinese record:

1) The Oct 12, 2128 BCE solar eclipse was not seen from pre-Joshua’s Long Day China, unless SN8 calculations are off. Alternatively, if the location of the observer was somewhere along the southern coast of current Alaska, this eclipse would be a perfect match to the Chinese record. Possible, but not likely eclipse.

2) The Oct 4, 2127 BCE solar eclipse at sunset as viewed from pre-pole shift #1 China at 3S 164 W. Total annular eclipse, within China, at, or close to, the tip of the peninsula closest to the equator only. More distant from Erlitou than the Oct 7, 1829 BCE total solar eclipse. 31^st year of 60. Thus, not a good match. One year off from the record’s 30^th of 60.

3) The Nov 28, 1888 BCE solar eclipse would have been visible as an annular eclipse along a narrow path within the (current) boundaries of China, across north east China as currently located, as viewed from locations along that path in pre-pole shift #1 China. However, the Sun of this eclipse was in Sagittarius rather than in Scorpii and the constellation Fang. Astronomical New Moon #1 would then have been the (pre-pole shift #1 fall) Apr 5, 1888 BCE New Moon if the eclipsing (spring) Nov 28, 1888 BCE New Moon was reckoned as #9. If the eclipsing moon, Fang, was reckoned as Moon #4 then the corresponding Moon #1 would have been Aug 30, 1888 BCE. This apparent discrepancy re the constellation Fang/Scorpii vs the Sagittarius eclipsed Sun could be understood as an overdue intercalation month. That is, causing this eclipse Nov 28, 1888 BCE Moon to be (mis-)labeled Fang rather than being labeled as one of the constellations associated with the prior month #3. The spring vs fall issue remains unresolved at this time.

4) The Oct 7, 1829 BCE total solar eclipse as visible from pre-pole shift #1 China. Defines a large portion of the boundary between China and Mongolia (as presently defined). Good fit provided the calendar year was at that time reckoned as beginning in the seventh month, as do the Jewish, Hebrew and Biblical calendar years presently. The eclipse maximum was fairly distant from Erlitou.

Of the above 1) – 4) alternatives, I find that 2) can be ruled out, 1), a pre-Joshua’s Long Day, pre-pole shift #2, option, is unlikely, while 3) and 4), both of which are pre-pole shift #1 options, remain the more likely options.

Contemporary Bible correlations:

1) In my file The Sacred Calendar of the Creator in Progress (version XXIX.2).xls, under the tab ‘6000+ years’, at 1888 BCE, I have a note referencing Book of Jasher 21:22, 38 relating 1888 BCE to a visit of Abram to his son Ishmael in Ishmael’s 22^nd year of life and Isaac’s 8^th year of life.

2) In my file The Sacred Calendar of the Creator in Progress (version XXIX.2).xls, under the tab ‘6000+ years’, at 1835 BCE, I have a note referencing Book of Jasher 26:16 relating 1835 BCE to the conception of Jacob and Esau. At 1820 BCE, I have a note referencing Jasher 26:17, 29 and the 15^th year of Jacob & Esau, and the death of Abraham, and also a note referencing Jasher 27:15, 16 and the death of Nimrod.

A Scripture date stamp, based in part on the New Moon as visible from Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia before Joshua’s Long Day, found in Numbers 10:11, 13

Beginning at sunset Julian Day Thu Apr 19, pre-Joshua’s Long Day at Sinai Sat Apr 21, 1494 BCE. (Cf. the tab ‘Exodus+2years’ in my file JewishPriestlyCoursesDatedBack.xlsm)

Numbers 10:11 KJV And it came to pass on the twentieth day of the second month, in the second year, that the cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle of the testimony.

Num 10:13 TLT And within the First [Day of the week] they took their journey according to the commandment of the Yehovah by the hand of Moses.

More…

A partial lunar eclipse

May 7, 1431 BCE

Joshua 5:10 – Seventh Day Sabbath / Passover Preparation / Feast of Firstfruits / Abib 14

Jos 5:10 TLT And the children of Israel encamped[2] at Gilgal.[3] [4] And they observed the Passover[5] in the fourteenth day of the month during the twilight hour[6] of both evenings the first one of which included an eclipse [7] of the Moon[8] [9]

Or, as more fully expressed, using these [explanatory [bracketed] and/or italic] words…

Jos 5:10 TLT And the children of Israel encamped[10] at Gilgal.[11] [12] And they observed the Passover [at the beginning of the Seventh Day Sabbath and at the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread] in the fourteenth day of the month during the twilight hour[13] of both evenings the first one of which included an eclipse[14] of the Moon[15] [See the pictures below! In fact, at sunset the eclipsed Moon of May 7, 1431 BCE was rising over the SSE horizon while moving thence onwards above Jericho in the SSW as viewed from the hills NNE of Jericho.] [16]

Jos 5:10 KJV And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.

More…

A pole shift; the second of the three pole shifts identified by Charles Hapgood.

Mon(!) June 30, 1425 BCE, Joshua’s Long Day.

Joshua 10:12

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.”

More… and more…

If the solar event in the 15^th year of Hezekiah, King of Judah, was a pole-shift, then Mt. Tabor, at the time of King Saul, may have been located at about 13 S; 41 W, and…

A total lunar eclipse

- Tied (?) in the Holy Scriptures to the sunrise of a Seventh-day Sabbath further defined by a certain numbered month of the Scriptural calendar year, which month is identified by the record found in 1 Samuel 27:7. More…

Pre-Hezekiah Sat AM Dec 20 = Julian Day Fri AM Dec 19, 1061 BCE

Quoting the Holy Scriptures:

Tied to the death of King Saul of Israel are the familiar words out of 1 Samuel 28:13, 14 (KJV)

“I saw gods ascending out of the earth… An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle…,” which words are probably better translated (TLT ©) “I saw gods [the sun and the moon] being above the horizon of the earth… A waxing old [mature and/or setting] entity [the ‘old moon’] above [the horizon of the earth]; and it was covered with a cover[ing shadow, i.e. a lunar eclipse.]”

For a detailed study, please cf. this link to another article of mine.

A Chinese total (or hybrid) solar eclipse recorded as “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…”:

As observed from pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift River Han in China.

1) Most likely (item #4 in the column to the right):

The Sept 23, 973 BCE total solar eclipse would indeed result in an event perfectly described by the words translated “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…” (100% obscuration lasting 1 min 54 sec as observed 1 hour 50 min before sunset, from River Han). This eclipse seems to be a perfect, and the best, fit unto the Chinese record.

2) Less likely (item #2 in the column to the right):

The almost 98% hybrid solar eclipse of Aug 13, 980 BCE would result in a noticeable darkening of the sky, with maximum 1 hour past noon, reasonably well described by the translation “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…”. It satisfies the Chinese record fairly well.

Quote – Further analysis below…:

Per Google Earth the Han River is currently located between 30-33N 106-114E (between the two red pins in the map below):

The above referenced Chinese solar eclipse as heretofore identified while not considering a pole shift between then and now:

This May 31, 976 BCE solar eclipse as maximally obscured, 84.820%, from the area of the River Han that runs closest to the path of this eclipse. But unfortunately, an eclipse that is at maximum 85% obscured does not make the “sky very dark”…

Considerations re the pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, solar eclipse in “the 19^th year of King Zhao… by River Han”:

Earth’s coordinate system prior to the 699/698 BCE pole shift. Including China at 5±15S 96±16W (22S-10N 80-112 W).

Selecting all the total, annular, or hybrid solar eclipses visible from anywhere near the pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift location of China during the 68-year period 1008-940[17] BCE, a total of 29 eclipses:

Selecting, among the above 29 solar eclipses, only the ones which would have caused an event described by the words “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…” along the River Han as located prior to the 699/698 BCE Hezekiah, pole shift. That is, the maps above where the path of totality or annularity crosses, or very nearly crosses, the area between 3-5S 106-112W, as per a comparison of two maps below; Google Earth to the left of my pre-Hezekiah global map:

In the Google Earth map to the left above, the red pins indicate the extent of River Han. Superimposing that location upon the global map at the right, I find the pre-pole shift extent of River Han within 3-5S 106-112W.

Selecting from the above 29 eclipses, all the eclipses >51% obscured at the corner of 3-5S 106-112W closest to the eclipse path, I find only the following seven (7) eclipses meeting said criteria:

Less than 75% obscuration. Would not result in an event well described by the words “the sky turned very dark… by River Han”. Thus, not a very likely contender for satisfying the criteria given per the Chinese record.

This almost 98% total solar eclipse of Aug 13, 980 BCE would result in a noticeable darkening of the sky, with maximum 1 hour past noon, reasonably well described by the translation “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…”. It satisfies the Chinese record fairly well.

This Sept 23, 973 BCE eclipse would indeed result in an event perfectly described by the words translated “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…” It seems to be a perfect, and the best, fit unto the Chinese record. 100% obscuration beginning 1 hr 50 min prior to sunset and lasting 1 min 54 sec.

Less than 80% obscuration. Would not result in an event well described by the words “the sky turned very dark… by River Han”. Thus, not a very likely contender for satisfying the criteria given per the Chinese record.

The past maximum eclipsed Sun rising above the River Han, China horizon. This dawn event would have involved a slightly darker and slower dawn than usual, but with no intermittent darkening along the way of the ever more lightening dawn. At sunrise 50% of the solar disc would be covered by the Moon, as per the above SN8 rendering of that eclipse event. I do not find this event being well described by the above Chinese record.

Conclusion:

I find this recorded Chinese eclipse being most likely identifiable with one of two eclipses:

1) Less likely (item #2 above): The almost 98% total solar eclipse of Aug 13, 980 BCE would result in a noticeable darkening of the sky, reasonably well described by the translation “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…”. It satisfies the Chinese record fairly well.

2) Most likely (item #4 above):

The Sept 23, 973 BCE eclipse would indeed result in an event perfectly described by the words translated “the sky turned very dark… by River Han…” It seems to be a perfect, and the best, fit unto the Chinese record.

A Chinese annular solar eclipse at dawn:

A solar eclipse observed from pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift Zheng in China described in the record as “the day dawned twice at Zheng”.

April 21, 918 BCE annular solar eclipse

Quote – Further analysis below…:

Comparative maps showing current coordinates of the ancient Zheng (at 34°35’N 113°35’E; Google Earth Pro map to the left, Wikipedia map to the right).

The above referenced Chinese solar eclipse as heretofore identified while not considering a pole shift between then and now:

Maps showing the path of the solar eclipse previously associated with the Zheng eclipse. That is, as per the current location of Zheng. This eclipse began 69 min before sunrise, Maximum magnitude 0.96826 11 min before sunrise. Would have appeared as a “double dawn”, but only if Zheng was then located at the same geographical coordinates as presently.

Considerations re the pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, timing of the Zeng solar eclipse at dawn:

Earth’s coordinate system now (Google Earth Pro to the left) vs prior to the 699/698 BCE pole shift. Including Zheng in China at 8S 110W:

Selecting all the total, annular, or hybrid solar eclipses visible from anywhere near the pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift location of China during the 80 year period 940-860 BCE, a total of 41 eclipses:

Among all of the above 41 eclipse maps, I find only 10 eclipses that would have been potentially visible as a “double dawn”, or as an eclipse in the forenoon, at Zheng, as located at 8S 110E…

Began 14 min past sunrise. Max 36.724% 72 min past sunrise. This would have slowed down the dawn experience a tiny bit, but not really made it appear as a double event.

This solar eclipse began when the Sun was already at 14.8 deg altitude. Not really a “double dawn” event.

This eclipse began 94 min before sunrise and ended 26 min past sunrise. Maximum eclipse 37 minutes before sunrise. A true “double dawn” event at Zheng.

This eclipse began when the sun was already 12.2 deg above the horizon. Not a “double dawn” event.

This eclipse began when the sun was already 36.4 deg above the horizon. Not a “double dawn” event.

This eclipse began when the Sun was already high in the sky, 57.2 deg. Not a “double dawn” event.

This eclipse began when the Sun was already high in the sky, 29.0 deg. Not a “double dawn” event.

This eclipse began 7 min before sunrise, had its maximum 37 min past sunrise, but maximum obscuration was only 13.297%. Would have been visible at sunrise, but wouldn’t have created much, if anything, of a “double dawn” event.

This eclipse began 29 min before sunrise, maximum 26 min past sunrise. Max obscuration 32.186%. Would have appeared as a slowed down sunrise, but not likely as a “double dawn.”

This eclipse began 22 min past sunrise. Had its maximum obscuration 20.550% 48 min past sunrise. Would not likely have given the impression of a “double dawn”.

Conclusion:

The pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift eclipse recorded as observed in Zheng in China as a “double dawn” can be identified as the Apr 21, 918 BCE solar eclipse. The one and only eclipse during the 80-year period 940-860 BCE, among 182 total, annular, or hybrid solar eclipses anywhere near China, that truly would have appeared as a “double dawn.”

A total lunar eclipse from the view point of pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, Ashur, Iraq, at 15S 55W (Where currently the State of Mato Grosso in Brazil is located, at the very center of South America).

At the time of the simultaneous moonrise and sunset on Sep 29, 880 BCE.

Kurkh stele of Ashurnasirpal II – The icons at the top of the stele (below right) correspond the stars on the sky visible from pre-Hezekiah (before the last poleshift) Nimrud-Kalhu-Ashur (at 15S 55W) during the lunar eclipse of Sep 29, 880 BCE, the year of Ashurnasirpal II’s ascension to the throne:

Zoomed in view of the top portion of the above stele.

Starry Night Pro 8 astronomy software display of the 29 Sep 880 BCE lunar eclipse, - as viewed from Pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Nimrud-Kalhu-Asshur at 15S 55W:

The totally eclipsed full Moon rising above the horizon in the East.

The eclipsed Moon is close to the constellation Swallow (Pisces).

In the waning twilight the Moon slowly emerges out Earth’s shadow

while a growing number of stars become visible,

including those of the constellations Scutum (The Shield), high in the sky, and Taurus (the Bull) rising from below the eastern horizon…

Notice the 5 astronomical objects represented by the five Kurkh stele Ashurnasirpal II icons:

1) Taurus below the horizon as also below the king’s finger in the stele,

2) the setting Sun at the kings finger,

3) the Swallow (Pisces),

4) Scutum (The Shield), and

5) the emergence of the Moon out of the total lunar eclipse.

The emerging Moon on the Eastern sky compares favorably to the eclipse icon of the stele above.

A partial solar eclipse as viewed from Pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Ashur-Kalhu-Nimrud in Iraq at 15S 55W

Mar 11, 879 BCE

Mar 11, 879 BCE partial solar eclipse. I found the image below on a, for me thus far unidentified, wall-covering/relief labeled "Relief of Ashurnasirpal II with the God Ashur hovering above (c. 883-859; Trustees of the British Museum, London)". Looks like it could be a record of a solar eclipse in the constellation Swallow (Pisces) within the 1^st full calendar year of Ashurbanipal II’s reign as King of Assyria:

(Source)

Notice the Man [“…in the Moon”] eclipsing the Sun with the Swallow in the background. Notice how one finger is pointing upwards as in the Swallow rising in the East, while the finger of the King to the left is pointing downwards, as in the eclipsing Sun setting in the West. One of the King’s images looking and pointing to the East (to the left in the picture), the other King pointing to the setting Sun in the West.

Notice the similarities and differences between the winged disc icons in each of the two reliefs above!

Notice also the pointing fingers, and likewise the pine cones in the hands of the angels behind. The ones on the right, while facing and pointing to the left, are pointing slightly upwards, as in the rising stars in the east. The ones on the left, while facing and pointing to the right, are pointing slightly downwards, as in the setting stars in the west. How does that apply to an eclipse event occurring at sunset (in the west)? What’s the significance of the men facing and pointing left in the relief above? Could it be intended as a reminder that the new 24-hour day is beginning with the approaching darkness arising in the east at the time of sunset? As in a new day of life, and as in the Tree of Life depicted underneath.

Both of the above reliefs fit this sunset Mar 11, 879 BCE partial solar eclipse very well (except as noted in the last paragraph above):

Notice the solar eclipse as located in the middle of Pisces (ancient Swallow)!

Maximum occlusion as viewed from 15S 55W

Solar eclipse path March 11, 879 BCE, as superimposed on current, post-Hezekiah, post-pole shift, geography.

A total lunar eclipse visible from the horizon of Pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Nimrud-Kalhu-Asshur at 15S 55W.

Oct 10, 862 BCE. The 19^th year of reign of Ashurnasirpal II.

Ashurnasirpal II stele – BM118805 – The Great Stele: The icons at the top of the stele correspond to the lunar eclipse on Oct 10, 862 BCE, and to the 19th year of Ashurnasirpal II’s reign, which 19th year corresponds to “Ashurnasirpal II's palace in Kalhu… having been completed after around 15 years…” of building (Ref. links: Cf. Gateway to... Sacred Calendar...):

Ashurnasirpal II stele – BM118805

Sky view facing east.

Sky view facing south at the time the Moon enters Earth’s umbral shadow.

Notice the 5 astronomical objects represented by the five Kurkh stele Ashurnasirpal II icons:

1) Sunset,

2) Taurus (The Bull) rising over the horizon,

vs facing south, or facing east.

3) the Moon (subsequent total eclipse between 1:55/2:55 - 4:22/5:22 AM),

vs facing south, or facing east,

4) Pegasus (The Winged Horse), and

vs facing south

5) Scutum (The Shield).

vs facing south

A total lunar eclipse

Nov 21, 855 BCE. At the beginning of the 1st calendar year of reign of Shalmaneser III.

Nov 21, 855 BCE total lunar eclipse at the beginning of the 1st calendar year of reign of Shalmaneser III. A not very common astronomical event recorded in some detail at the top of the Kurk Monolith stele of Shalmaneser III. Indeed, within the years between 900 BCE – 817 BCE I find only three lunar eclipses that are fairly well described, and are clearly identifiable, by the stele icons. Nov 21, 855 BCE is within Shalmaneser III’s 1^st year of reign:

1) Nov 21, 855 BCE;

2) Oct 31, 845 BCE; and

3) Nov 1, 826 BCE.

Notice above and below (the King’s finger indicating the horizon): 1) the eclipsed Moon , 2) Taurus (The Bull) , 3) Pleiades (The Seven Sisters) , 4) Eridanus (The Celestial River) , 5) Cetus (The Sea Monster) , and 6) The Swallow (Pisces)

The Nov 21, 855 BCE evening sky as viewed facing east.

The Moon entering Earth’s Shadow (at 21:45 SN8 time)

A partial solar eclipse as viewed from pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Nimrud-Kalhu-Asher at 15S 55W.

Apr 21, 853 BCE. Within the 3rd calendar year of reign of Shalmaneser III.

Apr 21, 853 BCE solar eclipse maximum while at 9 degrees above the horizon where the Swallow (Pisces) just set behind the horizon (30 degrees between the Sun and the Swallow). The Sun followed the Swallow beyond the horizon. Compares favorably with the image of the Sun close to, even touching, the image of the Swallow (Pisces) on the 1st row of the Black Obelisk showing Sûa, the Gilzânite, kissing the dirt in front of Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian king. Shalmaneser concurred Gilzânu in his 3rd year.

Cf. the very similar event as described below at Shalmanesers 11th year (compare below!), at which time the maximum eclipse was 17 degrees above the horizon. Thus also corresponding with the longer distance between the images of the Sun and the Swallow seen on the 2nd row of same obelisk. Notice, however, that this eclipse took place on April 21, 853 BCE at the beginning of the spring to spring calendar year. It being therefore a road sign in time at the beginning of Shalmaneser's 3rd year.

Side 1, line 1: Notice the symbols of the Sun and of the Swallow ! Notice in particular their position and distance relative to one another, similarities and differences when comparing the two reliefs on the first and the second row upon the obelisk showing celestial objects.

Another translation of the obelisk text. And another.

“In the year named after Assur-bêl-kain, on the 13th of Duzu [Shalmaneser III’s 3^rd year of reign/TLT©], I left Nineveh, crossed the Tigris, went through the lands… I approached the land of Gilzânu. King Asâu of Gilzânu, together with his brothers, and his sons, came out to meet me. [I accepted from him tribute and gifts for my royal self— tamed horses, cattle, sheep, wines, and seven Bactrian camels. I made a heroic statue of my royal self and inscribed on it the glory of my lord Assur, the great lord, and the great power which I had displayed in the land of Nairî. I set it up in his temple in the middle of the city. I left Gilzanu, coming to Shilaia, the fortress of Kâki, king of Hubushkia.” (https://jewishchristianlit.com/annalsshalmaneser3/)

“[This inscription mentions the Syrian wars against Hadad, but does not mention Hazael. He says it is the fourth time they have fought, which is already more than we know about with Hadad. Presumably that would date this inscription around year 17]:

”I brought in subjection the land of Hatti to its farthest border, the land of Melidi, the lands of Daiani and Suhme, Arzashkun, the royal city of Arame of Armenia, the lands of Gilzanu and Hubushkia, from the source of the Tigris to the source of Euphrates, from Lake Urmia, to the Persian Gulf. I marched to Babylon, offered sacrifices there and went down to the land of Chaldea. I captured their cities and received their tribute. Hadad-ezer of Damascus, Irhulini of Hama, along with 15 coastal cities, advanced against me, I fought with them for the fourth time and brought about their overthrow. [I destroyed their chariots and cavalry, and appropriated their battle equipment. They fled for their lives…

”I conquered the entire Hittite-land; I entered into the passes of the land of Enzite and conquered Suhme, Daiani and Armenia. I accepted tribute of Gilzanu for the second time. For the third time I marched against the land of Nairî, I enscribed my name at the source of the Tigris.” ( https://jewishchristianlit.com/annalsshalmaneser3/)

In the last quote above, please notice the very extensive area covered by the Assyrian king! Accordingly, depending on his whereabouts, the solar eclipse would have appeared more or less total or partial. I do not know the exact whereabouts of Gilzanu?

3^rd year of Shalmaneser III: Apr 21, 853 BCE partial solar eclipse near sunset

(9 deg above the horizon at time of maximum AND the Moon passing the Sun on the right side)

while Pisces (The Swallow) is setting behind the horizon.

The two icons touching each other, corresponding to the above 9 degrees – as also to the closer approach between the Sun and the Moon in this 3^rd year event.

Notice also the relative left vs right positions between the two icons (the Sun to the left) vs between the Sun on the left and the eclipsing Moon on the right in the two events (above and below)!

A partial solar eclipse as viewed from pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Nimrud-Kalhu-Asher at 15S 55W.

Apr 12, 844 BCE. Within the 11^th calendar year of reign of Shalmaneser III.s

Apr 12, 844 BCE solar eclipse with maximum 17 degrees above the horizon where the Swallow (Pisces) is setting. On the 2^nd row of the Black Obelisk we see Jehu, the Samaritan (King of Israel), kissing the dirt in front of Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian king in Shalmaneser's 11th year. Cf. the very similar event as described above at Shalmanesers 3rd year, at which time the maximum eclipse was only 9 degrees above the horizon. Thus also corresponding with the shorter distance between the images of the Sun and the Swallow seen on the 1st row of same obelisk. Notice, however, that this eclipse took place on April 12 at the beginning of the spring to spring calendar year. It being therefore a road sign in time at the beginning of Shalmaneser's 11th or else 12th year. Is this an apparent disagreement between the 3rd and 11th year of the obelisk vs the timing of these two solar eclipse events? Or else, was this latter solar eclipse considered an event at the end of the 11th calendar year?

Side 1, line 2. Notice the symbols of the Sun and of the Swallow! Notice in particular their position and distance relative to one another! The second one (above) of the two reliefs on the obelisk showing celestial objects.

“In the eleventh year of my reign, I crossed the euphrates for the ninth time. I captured countless cities. I descended upon cities of the land of Hamath. I captured 89 cities. Hadad-ezer [Ben-Hadad II] of Aram and twelve kings of the land of Hatti stood by each other. I was successful in overthrowing them. (Lines 87-89)” (From bible.ca)

Another translation of the obelisk text. And another.

Please notice, in the above quote, the phrase “twelve kings of the land of Hatti”! That is, the twelve tribes of Israel…

“I brought in subjection the land of Hatti to its farthest border, the land of Melidi, the lands of Daiani and Suhme, Arzashkun, the royal city of Arame of Armenia, the lands of Gilzanu and Hubushkia, from the source of the Tigris to the source of Euphrates, from Lake Urmia, to the Persian Gulf. I marched to Babylon, offered sacrifices there and went down to the land of Chaldea. I captured their cities and received their tribute. Hadad-ezer of Damascus, Irhulini of Hama, along with 15 coastal cities, advanced against me, I fought with them for the fourth time and brought about their overthrow. [I destroyed their chariots and cavalry, and appropriated their battle equipment. They fled for their lives…

In the quote above, please notice the very extensive area covered by the Assyrian king! Accordingly, depending on his whereabouts, the solar eclipse would have appeared more or less total or partial.

11^th year vs 3^rd year eclipse – Moon to the left vs Moon to the right of the Sun

11^th year vs 3^rd year altitude above the horizon of the eclipse – 23 degrees vs 9 degrees

11^th year of Shalmaneser III: Apr 12, 844 BCE partial solar eclipse near sunset

(23 deg above the horizon at time of maximum AND the Moon passing the Sun on the left side)

while Pisces (The Swallow) is setting behind the horizon.

11^th year vs 3^rd year obelisk appearance – left vs right and greater vs lesser distance between the two icons.

The two icons, in the 11^th year, more distant from one other, corresponding to the above 23 degrees above the horizon – as also a less close approach between the Sun and the Moon in this 11^th year event.

Notice also the relative left vs right positions between the two icons (the Sun to the right in the 11^th year) vs between the Sun to the left and the eclipsing Moon on the right in the 3^rd year event!

Please notice the tiny geographical area around 15S 55W, shared by both of the eclipses defined on the Black Obelisk, as identified by the above eclipse maps, for Nimrud-Kalhu-Asshur, in the 3^rd and 11^th year of King Shalmaneser III!

A 0.1411 umbral magnitude partial lunar eclipse as viewed from pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Nimrud-Kalhu-Asher at 15S 55W.

June 28/29, 820 BCE. Shamsi-Adad V’s accession year.

Quote: ”Shamshi-Adad V (Akkadian: Šamši-Adad), son of Shalmaneser III, was the King of Assyria from ~~824 to 811~~ [820 to 807/TLT©] BC.”

Notice the almost identical celestial icons in comparison to Assurnasirpal II’s stela above! Shamsi-Adad V’s icons being only slightly more rotated to the left (counter clockwise). More below…

June 29, 820 BCE partial lunar eclipse as the Moon is entering into Earth’s shadow. 1) Scutum and 2) Pegasus (The Winged Horse) has already risen above the horizon at the time of 3) the beginning of the lunar eclipse. Thus also the order indicated on Shamsi-Adad V’s stele with 1) the Scutum icon at the top, followed by 2) the Pegasus (The Winged Horse) icon below, and then 3) the lunar eclipse icon…

Followed a few hours later by 4) Taurus rising above the horizon a few hours before 5) sunrise. As indicated also by the stele’s Taurus icon, the 4^th icon from the top, and lastly by 5) the Sun icon closest to 6) the King’s finger that is pointing out the horizon.

Strangely enough, so far as the rotation of the icons, it appears as though the King is viewing the celestial objects while facing south, not east or west?

That is, 1) vs , 2) vs , 3) vs , and 4) vs :

The sky viewed while facing south. Well, when located on the southern hemisphere, the darkest portion of the sky is the southern sky. Accordingly, if the King viewed the sky from a balcony facing south while having an open view also to the east and to the west, then this would make sense, wouldn’t it?

An Assyrian Stele powerfully dated by means of astronomical observations of the sky at that very time.

Nov 1, 807 BCE lunar eclipse dating the Stele of Adad-nirari [III] in his 1st year and 2nd summer of reign, which time was also the accession year of Jehoash (Joash), son of Jehoahash, Kings of Israel, and the 13th year of said Jehoahaz. 2 Kings 13:1, 3, 5, 10. Also the 37th year of Jehoash (Joash), King of Judah. 2 Kings 13:10. 'Cf. the tag Years of the kings'!

SN8 rendering of the Nov 1, 807 BCE sky above the eastern and western horizons at 8:56 PM local time (at the beginning of the eclipse) at pre-Hezekiah Nimrod-Kalhu-Asshur-Nineveh. As depicted also on this stele of Adad-nirari [III]. Notice the symbols of objects under the dome of the sky outlined by the top of the stele: The Sun, the eclipsed Moon, the constellations Pleiades (The Seven Sisters), Scutum (The Shield), The Swallow (at the northern fish in Pisces), Taurus (The Bull), and the King’s finger pointing to the horizon that he is observing. Thus, the very powerful dating in commemoration of the exact time of Adad-nirari’s ascension to the Assyrian throne.

English translation of the stela inscription:

” To the god Adad, son of the god Anu, Adad-narari [III], king of Assyria, son of Samsi-Adad (V), son of Shalmaneser (III), I mustered my chariotry, troops, army. In one year [=year #1 of Adad-narari’s reign /TLT©] I subdued the entire Amurru [Turkey] & Hatti [Syria, Israel]. I imposed tax & tribute of Mari [Ben-Hadad III], the Damascene. I received the tribute of Joash (Iu'asu), the Samaritan, (and) of the people of Tyre (and) Sidon. … At that time I decreed for Nergal-eris, governor, the land of Hindanu." (Adad-Nirari III, Tel Al-Rimah Stele, 796 BC)” (Quoted from Bible.ca)

16a

A 0.9676 near total umbral magnitude partial lunar eclipse as viewed from pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Nimrud-Kalhu-Asher at 15S 55W.

Nov 3, 780 BCE 0.9676 umbral magnitude near total lunar eclipse in Shalmaneser IV’s accession year. As represented upon the Stele of Bel-harran-beli-usur, an Assyrian palace herald, made during Shalmaneser IV's reign.

Stele of Bel-harran-beli-usur, an Assyrian palace herald, made during Shalmaneser IV's reign. “[105] Šalmaneser [IV], son of Adad-nirari, ruled for 10 years (~~782-773~~ [779-769/TLT©])”

Nov 3, 780 BCE near total lunar eclipse. Eight plus hours past 1) sunset , 2) the umbral (=visible part) eclipse beginning at 04:07 while 3) the Swallow (n. Pisces) is setting. Sunrise at 07:10:49. Eclipse ending at 07:14, moonset at 07:16, the eclipsing Moon is in Taurus. 4) Gemini? setting next after Taurus, i.e. 30 degrees behind the Moon and about one hour past sunrise.

Consider this: Gemini (The Twins), as in a double (hidden) meaning… Notice however, that the man in the stele is facing and pointing to the left = east, whereas this Nov 3, 780 BCE is an event in the west. Thus, this Nov 3, 780 BCE can only be a secondary, mirror image type, correlation with the event referenced on the stele.

16b

A 0.1020 umbral magnitude partial lunar eclipse as viewed from pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift, Nimrud-Kalhu-Asher at 15S 55W.

Oct 12, 778 BCE in the 2^nd or 3^rd calendar year following Shalmaneser IV’s eponym year, i.e. when Bel-esir (=Bel-harran-beli-usur?), chief of the palace, held the eponym title. Could it be that Bel-harran-beli-usur erected his stele not only in honor of King Shalmaneser IV, but also in honor of himself? That is, by making the five celestial icons on the stele that could be interpreted to represent either one or both of two different lunar eclipses while also two different government persons, the King and the ‘chief of the palace’?

Stele of Bel-harran-beli-usur, an Assyrian palace herald, made during Shalmaneser IV's reign. “[105] Šalmaneser [IV], son of Adad-nirari, ruled for 10 years (~~782-773~~ [779-769/TLT©])”

Oct 12, 778 BCE. 1) About 2 hours past sunset , 2) the 0.1020 umbral (=visible part) eclipse beginning at 21:52 while 30 degrees above the horizon and about 30 degrees below 3) the Swallow . Sunrise at 07:10:49. Eclipse ending at 23:05 as 4) Gemini? rises over the horizon below.

Consider this: Gemini (The Twins), as in a double (hidden) meaning…

An annular or partial Solar Eclipse as seen from the pre-Hezekiah, pre 699/698 BCE pole shift location of Greece…

Sep 28, 778 BCE solar eclipse:

An eclipse in “the first year of the first Olympiad… written about two hundred years after that time…”?

Question is:

If that is true, which solar eclipse does this represent?

The corrected ”B.C. 776… first year of the first Olympiad…” was the year 779/778 BCE, not “B.C 776.”

Quote:

Question is:

If that is true, which solar eclipse do these words represent: “B.C. 776 (“the first year of the first Olympiad)”?

Cf. also the Pre-Hezekiah map of Earth’s coordinate system below!

Per my file ScriptureChronology.xls, the first year of the first Olympiad was the year 779/778 BCE, not “B.C. 776…”. The one and only solar eclipse that would have been visible in Pre-Hezekiah Greece, or even in the Middle East and Europe (20-50S 18-70W; Greece at about 24S 41W; cf. map below) between fall 779 BCE and fall 778 BCE, is the Sep 28, 778 BCE eclipse, which would have been visible from Pre-Hezekiah Greece at sunset time:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The coordinate system of Earth prior to the 699/698 pole shift:

The one and only solar eclipse that covered any part of Europe and the Middle East was the Sep 27, 778 BCE solar eclipse shown on this map of our current globe.

Comparing the above two maps, I find that the total solar eclipse would have been experienced along all of Scandinavia, Great Britain, and Ireland, while Greece would have experienced a partial solar eclipsesomething close to this:

Conclusion:

The Sep 28, 778 BCE solar eclipse is more than likely the solar eclipse that occurred in the 1^st year of the 1^st Olympiad. As such it constitutes further confirmation for the 15^th year of Hezekiah’s reign pole shift. However, the dates indicated in W. T. Lynn’s article are largely in error and uncertain!

A solar eclipse recorded in the Assyrian eponym list at the 11th year of Ashur-dan III, that is in the year of Esdu-sarabe, governor of Gozan. 85% obscuration at the pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift #3 location of Nimrud-Kalhu-Ashur-Nineveh at 15S 55W.

Sep 27, 759 BCE in the 11th year of Ashur-dan III. 85% obscuration at 15S 55W.

Excerpt from the Assyrian eponym list at the 11th year of Ashur-dan III with a notation that the “sun was eclipsed”. That is, in the year of Esdu-sarabe, governor of Gozan.

The 2^nd item in a Chinese list of 920 solar eclipses:

A lunar eclipse preceding a total Solar Eclipse as observed from pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift China.

October 14, 751 BCE partial lunar eclipse. This lunar eclipse is recorded as preceding the Shih Ching solar eclipse referenced on the 2^nd row of the list below:

Preceding the Oct 18, 751 BCE total solar eclipse recorded in China: A 70% lunar eclipse on Oct 14, 751 BCE, which was visible throughout pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, China, beginning 86± min after sunset. For details, please cf. the next item below!:

The 2^nd item in a Chinese list of 920 solar eclipses:

A total Solar Eclipse as observed from pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift China.

October 28, 751 BCE total solar eclipse. The Shih Ching eclipse referenced on the 2^nd row of the list below:

A pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, total solar eclipse recorded in China:

“In Shih Ching… there was a record which stated as follows: “The conjunction in the tenth month, the new moon on the first day Sing Mao, the sun was eclipsed, it was very bad.”

“Sing Mao” aka “xīnmǎo (辛卯)” or “Metal Hare” is the name of the 28^th year of the Chinese 60-year cycle calendar, which calendar is seasonally adjusted by intercalated months, month #1 typically beginning in November or December:

Earth’s coordinate system prior to the 699/698 BCE pole shift. Including China at 5±15S 96±16W (22S-10N 80-112 W).

Map showing visibility of the Oct 28, 751 BCE total solar eclipse. As viewed from a location within pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, China at 21° S 97° W. Certainly satisfying the criteria for a “bad” eclipse:

And this solar eclipse was preceded by a 70% lunar eclipse on Oct 14, 751 BCE, which was visible throughout pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, China, beginning 86± min after sunset:

This solar eclipse has previously been [mis-]identified as the Sep 6, 776 BCE hybrid solar eclipse. That is, while unaware of the subsequent 699/698 BCE pole shift that relocated China from around 5°±15° S 105°±15° W to its current location. And in spite of that Sep 6, 776 BCE eclipse occurring, not in the 28^th year, “Sing Mao” aka “xīnmǎo (辛卯)” or “Metal Hare”, as per the original record, but in the 3^rd year named “bǐngyín (丙寅); Fire Tiger.”:

Map showing visibility of the Sep 6, 776 BCE hybrid solar eclipse.

Visible at China’s current location only in the northernmost parts of China, and with a maximum obscuration of 30 degrees as viewed from within China. Not very “bad” and not a very good match for the available recorded data even if there had been no subsequent pole shift:

20a

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka Ch’un Ts’ew or Chun Chiu, we find a total Solar Eclipse as observed from China if there has been no pole shift since the time of this solar eclipse. Cf item 20b below!

February 22, 720 BCE total solar eclipse. This eclipse was indeed visible as “No. I… Visible at sunrise” as indicated in Dr Legge’s list. That is, provided China was then located at the same geographical coordinates as it is currently. That is, if there was no pole shift since that time.

This item 20a is most likely the eclipse intended by the editor that compiled the list found in Dr Legge’s book, and who also computed and generated the list headed “BY CALCULATION”. However, this eclipse is not necessarily the eclipse indicated by the original Chinese record, “Ch’un Ts’ew” or “Chun Chiu”, as referenced also by the “Year of Cycle… 58” in the list headed “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” below. (It is obvious that the data found in the list headed “BY CALCULATION” did not even exist as such until the Astronomical Calendar and until the Julian/Gregorian calendar were created, and also that the data provided in the columns “Chinese Moon” and “Day of Cycle” of the “BY CALCULATION” list does not consistently agree with the corresponding data in the “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” column.)

(Solar Eclipses in Chinese History, p. 137)

Re “No. I.” in the two lists below (under the title SOLAR ECLIPSES RECORDED IN THE CH’UN TS’EW)

“-719… February… 14…” “Moon… II” “Year of Cycle… 58” “Chinese Moon… III” “Visible at sunrise.”

Re “Year of Cycle… 58”:

Screen print from my file ScriptureChronology.xls.

Notice that Chinese calendar year 58, as given in Dr Legge’s list of eclipses, agrees perfectly with that year being the astronomical year -719 BCE. Not so if said “No. I” eclipse was the February 11, 719 BCE solar eclipse identified as item 20b below, which item 20b must be the eclipse observed in China if there was a pole shift subsequent to the “No. I” eclipse recorded in the “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” list..

Map showing visibility of the February 22, 720 BCE total solar eclipse. This eclipse was indeed visible as “Visible at sunrise” as indicated in Dr Legge’s list. His only remaining apparent error, re this item “No. 1”, then being “February… 14” rather than the correct “February 22”, that is, most likely, this error of a few days difference is due to a systematic error present also in most or all of the listed 37 solar eclipses. It is obviously due to an incorrect method[18] of calculating ancient dates. .

Re “Moon… II.”:

If this February 22, 720 total solar eclipse is correctly identified as the “No. I” eclipse, then the “Moon… II” in the “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” list above agree perfectly with the Wikipedia words quoted below. That is, if so, then Moon I began Dec 26, 721 BCE, Moon II began Jan 25, 720 BCE, and Moon III began Feb 23, as defined by the visible New Moon crescent observation in China. Astronomical New Moon occurred on December 25, 721 BCE at 1 PM local time in China, visible New Moon, as viewed from China, occurred on Dec 26, 721 BCE, and winter solstice occurred on December 28, 721 BCE at 3 AM.. Accordingly, if the visible New Moon was used for identifying the Chinese months, then this solar eclipse fell within “Month… II”, if the astronomical New Moon was used for identifying the “Chinese Moon”, then this was “Month… III”.

“Zhou dynasty

The first lunisolar calendar was the Zhou calendar (周曆; 周历), introduced under the Zhou dynasty (1046 BCE – 256 BCE). This calendar sets the beginning of the year at the day of the new moon before the winter solstice.”

For comparison:

Map showing visibility of the February 11, 719 BCE total solar eclipse, and, in the window pointing at the ancient location of China, the particulars of the solar eclipse at the location corresponding to the Chinese record. It is obvious from this map that if China was located at the same geographical coordinates as presently, then this Feb 11, 719 BCE solar eclipse could not possibly have been observed from anywhere near China.

Re “Day of Cycle… 6”:

“Day of Cycle… 6” should mean the 6^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

“An alternative system is to start with the first historical record of the 60-day cycle from March 8, 2637 B.C.E.” Unfortunately, I find no exact date associated with “2698 B.C.E.”

I get this result. But that gives me 30, not “Day of Cycle… 6”. Why? A difference of +24 days (or -36 days)! I don’t yet know!:

However, if we begin our “Day of Cycle” count with New Moon #1 of this particular Chinese “Year of Cycle”, we get:

New Moon #1: Jan 23, 720 BCE results in 57, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of 28 days (or -32) for this no pole shift vs this solar eclipse application:

That is, I get 30, not “Day of Cycle… 6”. A difference of +24 days (or -36 days) for this no pole shift vs this solar eclipse application. Not a good fit! Why, I don’t yet know!

Likewise, re the “No. I… --719… February… 14” entry in the list…

20b

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

A total Solar Eclipse, observed at least as partial from a pre-Hezekiah, pre 699/698 BCE pole shift location in China…

Feb 11, 719 BCE total solar eclipse, visible in China only if there has since been a very significant pole shift and if China was then located at 10±S 110±W.

An eclipse referenced by the words “…the earliest eclipse mentioned is that which, according to our reckoning, took place on the 14^th of February in the year B.C. 719”?

”14^th of February in the year B. C. 719”? Really?

- Per NASA’s listings there was no eclipse on that date?!

- Yet, pursuing this item to perfection proves to be exceptionally rewarding…

Quote:

Question is:

If there is truth behind the words above quoted, which solar eclipse does this represent?

Cf. also the Pre-Hezekiah map of Earth’s coordinate system above!

Well, Feb 11 is not ”Feb 14”, but per the Pre-Hezekiah map above the above -718 Feb 11 solar eclipse was certainly visible in the pre-Hezekiah location of Middle-East and Europe around noon time (cf. below…). JD Feb 11, 719 BCE corresponds to PH Feb 12, 719 BCE. “14^th of February” may well be an error based upon a misunderstanding of the language in the original record, or even a simple one figure typographical error.

As seen above, of the above solar eclipses, the one and only solar eclipse visible from any one place within our current, post-Hezekiah, location of Middle East, Europe, Africa, or Asia, was the -0718 Feb 11 eclipse, which would have been visible from nowhere within Middle East, Europe, Africa, or Asia, except for the coast of West Africa, including Marocco, as currently located.

More significantly, this -718 Feb 11 eclipse would also have been visible from pre-Hezekiah China (at 0±10S 110±10W)!:

The pre-Hezekiah Feb 12, 719 BCE solar eclipse as viewed from the current location of Marocco.

The Feb 12, 719 BCE solar eclipse as viewed from Pre-Hezekiah China at 0±10S 110±10W.

The Feb 12, 719 BCE solar eclipse path. The inserted window showing particulars pertaining to Pre-Hezekiah China:

Or, if ”14^th of February… B.C. 776” is based upon the current erroneous Olympiad reckoning, one of these eclipses?

But there is no February eclipse among these last three eclipses!

Conclusion:

This ”14^th of February in the year B. C. 719” eclipse is most likely an error for Feb 12, 719 BCE, based on a less than perfect translation of a Chinese calendar date provided in a Chinese record written in the Chinese language! As such I find reason for pursuing the original Chinese record of this eclipse!... Indeed, to begin with, I found a complete and free pdf version of Dr Legge’s book, above referenced[19]… and in it a list with detailed descriptions of 37 solar eclipses observed in China, the first two prior to the 699/698 BCE pole shift: Feb 14, 719 BCE, and Jul 5, 708 BCE.

Re “No. I.” in the two lists below (under the title SOLAR ECLIPSES RECORDED IN THE CH’UN TS’EW)

“-719… February… 14…” “Moon… II” “Year of Cycle… 58” “Chinese Moon… III” “Visible at Sunrise”

Earth’s coordinate system prior to the 699/698 BCE pole shift. Including China at 5±15S 96±16W (22S-10N 80-112 W).

Map showing the path of the Feb 11, 719 BCE total solar eclipse. It is obvious from this map that if China was located at the same geographical coordinates as presently, then this Feb 11, 719 BCE solar eclipse could not possibly have been observed from anywhere near China, or isn’t that so?! However…

Seeing from the above map of Earth’s Pre-Hezekiah geographical coordinates that China was at that time [Feb 11, 719 BCE] located around 5°±15°S 96°±16°W, we may now correlate the following info from Dr Legge’s book with the Feb 11, 719 BCE total solar eclipse:

I find that means “Duke Yin of Lu”. Accordingly, if 720/719 BCE was his 3^rd Year of Rule, then his 1^st year of reign was 722/721 BCE.

Re “Year of Cycle… 58”:

Screen print from my file ScriptureChronology.xls.

Notice that Chinese calendar year 58, as given in Dr Legge’s list of eclipses, agrees perfectly with that year being the astronomical calendar year -719 BCE. Apparently not so if said “No. I” eclipse was this February 11, 719 BCE solar eclipse, which must be the eclipse observed in China if there was a pole shift subsequent to (in 699/688 BCE) the “No. I” eclipse recorded in the “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” list. However, if, somehow, “February… 14” was reckoned as being placed within the last portion of that 58^th calendar year, then perhaps it would be possible? At first I didn’t see how. Perhaps a scribal error carryover from the prior year? Or, perhaps a post-pole shift editor’s “correction” of the “Year of Cycle” entry, based upon his blindness for the reality of the pole shift?…

Well, considering China’s pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, location, a great portion of China being then located on the southern hemi-sphere, the winter solstice AND the Chinese New Year, could be reckoned as occurring, not in December, but in June, when the southern hemi-sphere winter solstices were experienced. Accordingly, the pole shift year in China would have consisted of either 6 or 18 months, more or less. That is, a seasonal adjustment in the nature reminiscent of intercalated days or months. Testing this scenario against the existing solar eclipses, and against the above Chinese record, I find that the “Year of Cycle” of the pole shift was a short 6 months long year between two subsequent winter solstices. (Cf. the table below from my file Testing3ScenariousForCompatibilityWithChineseSolarEclipses.xlsx). The sequence of months from I-XII, however, would not have been disrupted. Instead, the New Year would have simply been moved from fall to spring, from month #7 to month #1, much like the Hebrew and Biblical calendars:

6-month pole shift year scenario
Astr.	BCE	Year of Cycle
			55
-721	722	55.5	56
-720	721	56.5	57
-719	720	57.5	58
-718	719	58.5	59
-717	718	59.5	60
-716	717	60.5	1
-715	716	1.5	2
-714	715	2.5	3
-713	714	3.5	4
-712	713	4.5	5
-711	712	5.5	6
-710	711	6.5	7
-709	710	7.5	8
-708	709	8.5	9
-707	708	9.5	10
-706	707	10.5	11
-705	706	11.5	12
-704	705	12.5	13
-703	704	13.5	14
-702	703	14.5	15
-701	702	15.5	16
-700	701	16.5	17
-699	700	17.5	18
-698	699	18.5	19
-697	698	19.5	20.5
-696	697	21	21.5
-695	696	22	22.5
-694	695	23	23.5
-693	694	24	24.5
-692	693	25	25.5

2 winter solstices 6 months apart ==> Pole shift after 699 BCE winter solstice ==> Fear of impending cataclysms closely tied to, yet subsequent to, winter solstices generally (the time when intercalated days or months were added ==> Mid Winter Blut and like sacrificial rites for purposes of appeasing the wrath of the gods.

Re “Moon… II.”:

If this February 11, 719 total solar eclipse is correctly identified as the “No. I” eclipse, then the “Moon… II” in the “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” list above agrees perfectly with the Wikipedia words quoted below. That is, if so, then Moon I began Dec 15, 720 BCE, Moon II began Jan 14, 720 BCE, and Moon III began Feb 14, as defined by the visible New Moon crescent observation in Pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, China at 10S, 110W.Winter solstice occurred on December 27, 720 BCE at noon local time. Accordingly, this Feb 11, 719 BCE solar eclipse fell within “Month… II”.

“Zhou dynasty

Re “Day of Cycle… 6”:

“Day of Cycle… 6” should mean the 6^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

“An alternative system is to start with the first historical record of the 60-day cycle from March 8, 2637 B.C.E.” Unfortunately, I find no exact date associated with “2698 B.C.E.”

I get this result. But that gives me 24, not “Day of Cycle… 6”. Why? A difference of +18 days (or -42 days)! I don’t yet know!:

However, if we begin our “Day of Cycle” count with New Moon #1 of this particular Chinese “Year of Cycle”, we get:

New Moon #1: Jan 23, 720 BCE results in 57, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of 28 days (or -32) for this no pole shift vs this solar eclipse application:

That is, I get 29, not “Day of Cycle… 6”. A difference of +23 days (or -37 days) for this pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift vs this solar eclipse application. Not a good fit!

How about backtracking our 60-day cycles as beginning on a prior “Moon… VII” or “Moon… I” to the New Moon at the end any potential last prior intercalated month?... Well, so doing provides:

So doing I get 7, not “Day of Cycle… 6”. A difference of +1 day (or -59 days) for this pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift vs this solar eclipse application. Close enough perhaps, considering the International Date Line, and/or the differences due to differences in reckoning the beginning of each day, sunset vs midnight, etc.? Yet, I find the close to 4-year reckoning between intercalations a bit long… [Feb 25. 723 BCE – Feb 4. 719 BCE]. And neither does it agree with my results re the “New Moon #1: Dec 12, 709 BCE” result below, i.e. following an intercalated month prior to that New Moon #1… Or, why would the intercalated month precede Feb 25 in this year while preceding Dec 12 in 709 BCE? Makes no sense! And attempting to apply a similar backtracking method on the 709 or 708 BCE eclipses did not work either! Accordingly, I still don’t know how to reckon the “Day of Cycle”…

Re “Visible at sunrise”:

The words “Visible at sunrise” are based, not upon the original Chinese record “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT”, but only “BY CALCULATION” of astronomical data available to the much later compiler and editor of the lists entitled “SOLAR ECLIPSIS RECORDED IN THE CH’UN TS’EW”. Most especially so re the list entitled “BY CALCULATION”:

Proof positive(?), or at least powerful evidence, of the 699/698 pole shift:

Per the above info re this Feb 11, 719 BCE solar eclipse being “visible at sunrise” from China, we find powerful evidence that China was indeed located at approximately 0°±10°S 110°±10°W at the time of that eclipse, and not at the present location (21°-52°N 73°-121°E). That is, powerful evidence, even proof positive when added to other data, of a major subsequent pole shift!

Potential rebuttal of the above said pole shift proof:

Map showing visibility of the February 22, 720 BCE total solar eclipse, which solar eclipse is consistent with Dr Legge’s list of Chinese solar eclipses, the one subtitled “BY CALCULATION”.

Likewise, re the “No. II… --708… July… 8” entry in the list (below)…

21a

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

A total Solar Eclipse as observed from China IF there has been no pole shift since the time of this solar eclipse.

July 17, 709 BCE total solar eclipse. This eclipse is consistent with Dr Legge’s “BY CALCULATION” list of Chinese solar eclipses. This eclipse was indeed visible as “No. II… Total about 3h. PM” as indicated in Dr Legge’s list. That is, provided China was at that time (July 17, 709 BCE) located at the same geographical coordinates as it is currently. That is, if there was no pole shift since that time.

This item 21a is most likely the eclipse intended by the editor that compiled the list found in Dr Legge’s book. However, this eclipse is not necessarily the eclipse indicated by the original Chinese record, as referenced also by the “Year of Cycle… 9” in the list headed “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” below.

The Chinese words “in the Chun-tsiu of Confucius” as quoted from page 304 in The Shu King:

Re “No. II.” in the two lists below (under the title SOLAR ECLIPSES RECORDED IN THE CH’UN TS’EW)

“-708… July… 8…” “Moon… VII” “Year of Cycle… 9” “Chinese Moon… VIII” “Total about 3h. P.M.”:

Map showing visibility of the July 17, 709 BCE total solar eclipse. This eclipse is consistent with Dr Legge’s “BY CALCULATION” list of Chinese solar eclipses. This eclipse was indeed visible as “Total about 3h. PM” as indicated in Dr Legge’s “BY CALCULATION” list. His reference “July 8”, rather than the correct “July 17”, could be a simple typo, such as dropping the ‘1’ in ‘17’, or, much more likely, as this discrepancy of a few days is present also in most of these listed 37 Chinese solar eclipses, is due to an incorrect method of finding ancient dates. .

For comparison:

Map showing visibility of the July 7, 708 BCE total solar eclipse.

Map showing particulars re the July 7, 708 BCE total solar eclipse at the location of pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, China.

For comparison with the above map and with the “No. I” Chinese solar eclipse above: Map showing particulars re the February 11, 719 BCE total solar eclipse at the approximate location of the sunrise observation recorded in the Chinese list of eclipses.

Notice the quite limited geographical area shared by the 719 BCE and by the 708 BCE eclipses. This constitutes powerful evidence of the pre-Hezekiah location of China and of the observer in China recording these Pre-Hezekiah, pre pole shift solar eclipse events.

Re “Day of Cycle… 29”:

“Day of Cycle… 29” should mean the 29^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

“An alternative system is to start with the first historical record of the 60-day cycle from March 8, 2637 B.C.E.” Unfortunately, I find no exact date associated with “2698 B.C.E.”... But that hypothesis failed when applied to the above listed 719 BCE and 720 BCE eclipses... Reckoning instead from the last prior recorded Chinese solar eclipse (above listed):

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 23, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of -6 days (or +54)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

However, if we begin our “Day of Cycle” count with New Moon #1 of this particular Chinese “Year of Cycle”, we get:

New Moon #1: Jan 22, 709 BCE results in 57, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of 28 days (or -32) for this no pole shift vs this solar eclipse application:

Tweaking this result by recognizing 1) there may have been an intercalated month in that Chinese calendar year prior to this eclipse, 2) that the Chinese New Moon #1 day began at sunset on the day prior to the above Julian Day; Dec 24, 710, and 3) that, in China, as currently located just next to the International Date Line, the Chinese date of this eclipse could be one day later than the UT date referenced by this Julian Day and Civil Date Calculator, gives me:

That is, I get 28, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of -1 day (or +59 days) for this no pole shift vs this solar eclipse application. Not an acceptable fit, even after the above tweaking actions!

Conclusion:

This 2^nd recorded solar eclipse as observed in China constitutes further confirmation of the 699/698 pole shift and of the pre-Hezekiah location of China. Nevertheless, consider also the “Potential rebuttal…” above!

21b

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

A total Solar Eclipse as observed from a pre-Hezekiah, pre 699/698 BCE pole shift location in China…

Jul 7, 708 BCE [local time sunset Jul 6, 708 BCE] pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift, total solar eclipse referenced in Dr Legge’s book, including a list of solar eclipses observed in China”, item #2 in the list below:

Re “No. II.” in the two lists below (under the title SOLAR ECLIPSES RECORDED IN THE CH’UN TS’EW)

“-708… July… 8…” “Moon… VII” “Year of Cycle… 9” “Chinese Moon… VIII” “Total about 3h. P.M.”

Map showing visibility of the Jul 7, 708 BCE total solar eclipse.

Map showing particulars re the July 7, 708 BCE total solar eclipse at the approximate location of the 3 PM observation recorded in the Chinese list of eclipses.

For comparison with the above map: Map showing particulars re the February 11, 719 BCE total solar eclipse at the approximate location of the sunrise observation recorded in the Chinese list of eclipses.

Notice the quite limited geographical area shared by the 719 BCE and by the 708 BCE eclipses. This constitutes powerful proof of the pre-Hezekiah location of the observer in China recording these solar eclipse events.

Re “Day of Cycle… 29”:

“Day of Cycle… 29” should mean the 29^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 24, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of -5 days (or +55)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

However, if we begin our “Day of Cycle” count with New Moon #1 of this particular Chinese “Year of Cycle”, we get:

New Moon #1: Jan 11, 708 BCE results in 57, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of 28 days (or -32) for this no pole shift vs this solar eclipse application:

If, within this Chinese year and prior to this eclipse, there was an intercalated month, we get:

New Moon #1: Dec 12, 709 BCE results in 27, not “Day of Cycle… 29”. A difference of -2 days (or +58) for this pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift vs this solar eclipse application:

Tweaking this result by recognizing 1) that the Chinese New Moon #1 day began at sunset on the day prior to the above Julian Day; Dec 11, 709, and 2) that, in China, as currently located just next to the International Date Line, the Chinese date of this eclipse could be one day later than the UT date referenced by this Julian Day and Civil Date Calculator, gives me:

An apparently perfect agreement with the “Day of Cycle… 29” as indicated by the Chinese record Ch’un Ts’ew!

Conclusion:

A total lunar eclipse in Sennacherib’s, King of Assyria, year of accession to the throne, as observed and recorded on Sennacherib’s Stele at the pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift #3, location of Nimrud-Kalhu-Ashur-Nineveh.

The Sep 23, 703 BCE total lunar eclipse.

The Sennacherib Stele

Interpretation of the Symbols at the top of the Sennacherib Stele:

Using SN8, I see the Sep 23, 703 BCE total lunar eclipse beginning 130 min prior to sunrise and 134 min prior to moonset while the eclipsing Moon was above or within the Swallow, which constellation was then setting behind the horizon. Thus, the first two stele icons representing 1) the eclipsing Moon, and 2) the setting Swallow. 3) Above them, some 50 degrees above the horizon, Taurus (and Pleiades) were hovering, as represented by the third stele icon: The Taurus icon as elevated upon a small pedestal. All of them still visible, or becoming visible as the last sliver of the Moon hid behind Earth’s shadow 77 min before Moonset and 4) 73 min before sunrise and before dawn, represented on the stele by the Sun icon, at a time when Pleiades was still visible above the Moon, and which constellation would thus not set until past sunrise and moonset. Thus the fifth stele icon: 5) the Pleiades icon. Accordingly, a perfect fit between this 703 BCE total lunar eclipse event and[MOU1] between the icons at the top of Sennacherib's stele! Notice also that the King on the Stela is looking, and pointing his finger, s little downwardsäsltowards the right edge of the stele.

More details of my search for a correct understanding of the icons at the top of Sennacherib’s Stele is found here, and my initial fumbling pursuit of understanding all these Assyrian Steles may be pursued here…. Cf. also my more long-term study results as available under the tab ‘6000+ years’ in my Excel files ‘The Sacred Calendar of the Creator in Progress (version XXIX.2).xls’, ‘ScriptureChronology.xls’, and in my file ‘GateWayToTheSacredCalendarOfTheCreatorInProgress....htm’

A pole shift; the third of the three pole shifts identified by Charles Hapgood.

An event that took place within the year beginning with Tishri 22, 699 BCE, King Hezekiah’s 15^th year of reign.

Isa 38:8

8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

2 Kings 20:8-11

8 And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?

9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?

10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.

11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

Flynn, David, Temple at the Center of Time, p. 2:

”Plato, Timaeus… Further in this work is the story of Atlantis… that had disappeared ”in a single day and night of misfortune”. ”

(Plato, The Timaeus, translated by Benjamin Jowett (New York, Liberal Arts Press, 1949).)

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

A Solar Eclipse as observed from a post-Hezekiah, post 699/698 BCE pole shift location in China…

The Oct 10, 695 BCE annular solar eclipse: A post-Hezekiah, post-pole shift, solar eclipse referenced in Dr Legge’s book, including a list of solar eclipses observed in China”, item #3 in the list below:

Re “No. III.” in the two lists below (under the title SOLAR ECLIPSES RECORDED IN THE CH’UN TS’EW)

“-694… October… 3…” “Moon… X” “Year of Cycle… 23” “Chinese Moon… XI” “Visible - Afternoon”

Map showing visibility of the Oct 10, 695 BCE annular solar eclipse, recorded as being “Visible – Afternoon” in China.

For comparison with the above map: Map showing particulars re the July 8, 708 BCE total solar eclipse at the approximate location of the 3 PM observation recorded in the Chinese list of eclipses.

Notice the very different geographical location of the solar eclipse observer in China in this pre-Hezekiah eclipse map vs the corresponding location in the above map!

For comparison with the 708 BCE and 695 BCE maps above: Map showing particulars re the February 11, 719 BCE total solar eclipse at the approximate location of the sunrise observation recorded in the Chinese list of eclipses.

Re “Day of Cycle… 7”:

“Day of Cycle… 7” should mean the 7^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 31, 38, or 43, not “Day of Cycle… 7”. A difference of +24, +31, or +36 days (or -36, -29, or -24 days)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

This 2^nd recorded solar eclipse as observed in China constitutes further confirmation of the 699/698 pole shift and of the pre-Hezekiah location of China.

The Esarhaddon Stele.

On the stele I see the King’s finger pointing downwards below the Sun icon, apparently indicating a past sunset event. Above the Sun icon I see the Swallow (at the northern fish in Pisces) and an icon representing the eclipsed Moon. Above the King’s head I see Pleiades (the Seven Sisters). The four icons of various animal upon which kings are riding could possibly represent the first four months of the calendar year, making the eclipsed Moon an event in the middle of the 5^th month.

Accordingly, if the four month icons are reckoned as beginning with the lower one to the right, I perceive the King riding a Bull while holding a sheaf of barley, as in the first fruits of the Waving of the Sheaf while the New Moon was in Taurus (The Bull), New Moon #1. The 3^rd New Moon would then be the one at the upper right, where I find the King riding on the back of a Lion while sitting on a throne, not standing, as in the other three; possibly indicating the month of Esarhaddon’s ascension to the Assyrian throne. If the circles behind the enthroned King represent the days of that 3^rd month, then Esarhaddon’s ascension to the Assyrian throne may have occurred on the 6^th day of the 3^rd month, at which time the Moon was in the constellation Leo (The Lion).

The NASA lunar eclipse rendition of this Aug 13, 691 BCE partial lunar eclipse.

Accordingly, the 1^st month would have begun with the astronomical New Moon of Apr 3, 691 BCE, when we find the New Moon located in Taurus:

And the 6^th day of the 3^rd Moon would have begun at sunset Jun 5, 691 BCE, at which time the Moon was at the end of the extended tail of Leo (The Lion):

An upside down SN8 rendition of the Aug 12, 691 BCE at 23:26 partial lunar eclipse beginning.

As illustrated by the icons of the Esarhaddon Stele we find the eclipsing Moon adjacent to the Swallow (the northern fish in Pisces) while Pleiades (The Seven Sisters) is rising in the East. That is, behind the King who is facing the future, the western horizon where the Sun has set.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse, visible at sunset as total or partial in all of China.

Apr 15, 676 BCE total solar eclipse. Visible at sunset as total or partial in all of China as located since the pole shift 23+ years prior.

“No. IV.” in the lists below: “-675… April… 6…” “Moon… III” “Year of Cycle… 42” “Chinese Moon… V” “Visible – Sunset”

Map showing the total Apr 5, 675 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial in all of China as located since the pole shift 23+ years prior. Visible as partial in early morning over all of China.

Problem: NOT “Visible - Sunset”

Map showing the total Apr 15, 676 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible at sunset as total or partial in all of China as located since the pole shift 23+ years prior.

Re “Day of Cycle… 49”:

“Day of Cycle… 49” should mean the 49^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 42 not “Day of Cycle… 49”. A difference of -7 days (or +53)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

24 ½

A typographical error: When corrected, pointing, not to any recorded observation, but only to a calculated post-Hezekiah, post 699/698 BCE pole shift annular solar eclipse.

The annular solar eclipse on May 27, 669 BCE erroneously referenced as May 27, 699 BCE. An eclipse referenced by the words “…in the reign of Esarhaddon… in the month Tammuz… It is very difficult to identify this eclipse with any resulting from calculation… it may have been one which occurred on the 27th of May, B.C. 699, and was annular in India.”?

“27^th of May, B.C. 699”? Really?

- Per NASA’s listings there was no eclipse on that date?!

Quote:

. [Cf. the quote in the last 2 entries above:]

Question is:

If that is true, which solar eclipse does this represent?

Cf. also the Pre-Hezekiah map of Earth’s coordinate system above!

As seen above, only one of the above solar eclipses in 699 BCE were visible “in India”. Not as depicted in the above four maps, but when applied to the Pre-Hezekiah pole shift. That is, the Dec 22, 699 BCE annular eclipse that may have been visible shortly before sunset as an annular solar eclipse from a Pre-Hezekiah’s 15^th year pre-poleshift India, which at that time was located where Middle-America is currently located (about 10N 80W±). That is, provided said pole shift did occur subsequent to Dec 22, 699 BCE and not before said date!

But Dec 22 is not “the 27^th of May”.

However, I find this May 27, 669 BCE annular eclipse that did indeed cover India:

Accordingly, the year provided in the quote “it may have been one which occurred on the 27th of May, B.C. 699, and was annular in India” is almost certainly a simple typo exchanging ‘669’ for ‘699’.

Conclusion:

W. T. Lynn’s reference to a solar eclipse “which occurred on the 27th of May, B.C. 699, and was annular in India” is a simple typographical error corrected by changing just one figure! That given, this reference of W. T. Lynn has no further significance to the within findings of mine.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Annular solar eclipse, visible in AM as annular or partial in all of China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior.

May 27, 669 BCE annular solar eclipse. Visible in AM as annular or partial in all of China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior.

“No. V.” in the lists below: “-668… May… 18…” “Moon… VI” “Year of Cycle… 49” “Chinese Moon… VI” “Visible – Morning”

Map showing the total May 16, 668 BCE annular solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial in south China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior. Visible as partial in early PM, beginning about ½ hour past solar noon, over south China.

Problem: NOT “Visible - Morning”

Map showing the total May 27, 669 BCE annular solar eclipse visibility path. Visible in AM as annular or partial in all of China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior.

Re “Day of Cycle… 8”:

“Day of Cycle… 8” should mean the 8^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 19, not “Day of Cycle… 8”. A difference of +11 days (or -49)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse, BUT not “Visible – Morning” as per the record in the above list.

“a total eclipse of the moon… beginning on the eastern quadrant of the moon and-spreading over the whole of the western quadrant. The planets Jupiter and Venus were visible during the eclipse…”

Visible April 21, 667 BCE at Mosul [=Nineveh] as a total lunar eclipse from sunset until 19:59 PM, then as a partial lunar eclipse over the western side of the Moon until 21:01 PM (per SN8). Jupiter and Venus were both visible over the opposing western horizon.

Quote:

“Nabu-ahi-irba, a senior court official and astronomer, reports to King Ashurbanipal that a total eclipse of the moon has been observed, beginning on the eastern quadrant of the moon and-spreading over the whole of the western quadrant. The planets Jupiter and Venus were visible during the eclipse…”

Clay tablet # 1883,0118.40 at the British Museum:

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Annular solar eclipse, visible as annular or partial over all of China.

Nov 10, 668 BCE annular solar eclipse, visible in China in AM.

“No. VI.” in the lists below: “-667… November… 3…” “Year of Cycle… 50” “Moon… XII” “Chinese Moon… XII” “Visible – Morning”

Map showing the Nov 10, 668 BCE annular solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial or annular all over China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior. Visible as partial in AM.

Re “Day of Cycle… 60”:

“Day of Cycle… 60” should mean the 60^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 52, not “Day of Cycle… 60”. A difference of -8 days (or +52)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse, visible as total or partial over all of China.

Aug 28, 664 BCE total solar eclipse, visible in China in PM.

“No. VII.” in the lists below: “-663… August… 21…” “Year of Cycle… 54” “Moon… IX” “Chinese Moon… IX” “Visible – Afternoon”

Map showing the Aug 28, 664 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial or total all over China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior. Visible in PM.

Re “Day of Cycle… 7”:

“Day of Cycle… 7” should mean the 7^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 56, not “Day of Cycle… 7”. A difference of -11 days (or +49)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

An evening Solar Eclipse in Assyria

An eclipse referenced by the words “…Assur-bani-pal… an eclipse of the Sun… that of the 27^th of June, B.C. 661… “for three days the evening Sun was darkened as on that day.”… In Tammuz an eclipse at evening… and the setting sun thus also for three days was troubled…”?

27^th of June, 661 BC

Quote:

. [Cf. the quote in the last 2 entries above:]

As seen below the post-Hezekiah’s pole shift solar eclipse of June 27, 661 BCE was indeed visible prior to sunset at the location of Nineveh in Assyria.

Indeed, Julian Day June 27, 661 BCE was a Monday. Thus, the sunset of UT June 27, 661 BCE would mark the beginning of the Third Day [of the week.] Accordingly, I believe I may safely conclude that the words above twice translated as “for three days” are a mistranslation of the original language words meaning ‘the Third Day’!

Apparently, the solar eclipse event reported by Oppert, was based upon better data than was the above three eclipses referenced by W. T. Lynn in his articles. Perhaps this fact may be helpful towards sifting the good out of the bad within W. T. Lynn’s article above quoted?

Conclusion:

The fact that this solar eclipse took place at the beginning of the Third Day [of the week] adds veracity to Oppert’s placement in time of this Assyrian solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse, visible as total or partial over all of China.

Aug 19, 655 BCE total solar eclipse, visible in China at noon and PM.

“No. VIII.” in the lists below: “-654… August… 11…” “Year of Cycle… 8” “Moon… IX” “Chinese Moon… IX” “Visible – Afternoon”

Map showing the Aug 19, 655 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial or total all over China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior. Visible noon to PM.

Re “Day of Cycle… 45”:

“Day of Cycle… 45” should mean the 45^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 49, not “Day of Cycle… 45”. A difference of +4 days (or -56)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse, visible as partial over most of China.

Apr 6, 648 BCE total solar eclipse, visible as partial in China at noon and PM.

“No. IX.” in the lists below: “-647…March… 29…” “Year of Cycle… 10” “Moon… III” “Chinese Moon… V” “Visible – Afternoon”

Map showing the Apr 6, 648 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial over most of China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior. Visible in PM or at sunset.

Re “Day of Cycle… 7”:

“Day of Cycle… 7” should mean the 7^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 22, not “Day of Cycle… 7”. A difference of +15 days (or -45)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Partial solar eclipse, barely visible as partial only in NE corner of China.

Aug 28, 645 BCE partial solar eclipse, barely visible as partial in NE corner of China in late PM.

“No. X.” in the lists below: “-644…January… 26…” “Year of Cycle… 13” “Moon… V” “Chinese Moon… III” “Not visible”

Map showing the Aug 28, 645 BCE partial solar eclipse visibility path. Barely visible as partial over north-eastern corner of China as located since the pole shift 30+ years prior. Visible in late PM.

Re “Day of Cycle… 21”:

“Day of Cycle… 21” should mean the 21^st day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 40, not “Day of Cycle… 21”. A difference of +19 days (or -41)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Annular solar eclipse visible in AM and early PM as annular or partial all over China.

Feb 3, 626 BCE annular solar eclipse. Visible as annular or partial over all of China. Visible in AM and early PM.

“No. XI.” in the lists below: “-644…January… 26…” “Year of Cycle… 32” “Moon… II” “Chinese Moon… III” “Visible at Noon”

Map showing the Feb 3, 626 BCE annular solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as annular or partial over all of China. Visible in AM and early PM.

Map showing the Jul 19, 625 BCE annular solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial or total over all of China. Visible in AM only.

Re “Day of Cycle… 60”:

“Day of Cycle… 60” should mean the 80^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 13, not “Day of Cycle… 60”. A difference of -47 days (or +13)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse, visible as total or partial over most of China.

Apr 28, 612 BCE total solar eclipse, visible as partial or total over most of China in AM only..

“No. XII.” in the lists below: “-611…April… 20…” “Year of Cycle… 46” “Moon… VI” “Chinese Moon… V” “Visible at Sunrise”

Map showing the Apr 28, 612 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial or total over most of China. Visible at sunrise and AM only.

Re “Day of Cycle… 38”:

“Day of Cycle… 38” should mean the 38^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 38, not “Day of Cycle… 38”. Wow, agreement! That’s a first in this list! Spurious coincidence? Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse, visible as total or partial in

China.

Sep 20, 601 BCE total solar eclipse, visible as partial or total in China..

“No. XIII.” in the lists below: “-600…September… 12…” “Year of Cycle… 57” “Moon… VII” “Chinese Moon… V” “Total about 3 h. 30 m- P.N.”

Map showing the Sep 10, 600 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial or total over eastern China. Visible at sunrise only. Consistent with the words “600…September… 12…”, but not with the words “Total about 3 h. 30 m- P.N.” However, after considering also items XX, XXI, and XXII in the Chinese list of solar eclipses, I find that this Sep 10, 600 BCE is not the one associated with this item #XIII…

Map showing the Sep 20, 601 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible as partial or total in all of China. Consistent with the words “Total about 3 h. 30 m- P.N.”, but not with the words “600…September… 12…”.

Re “Day of Cycle… 1”:

“Day of Cycle… 1” should mean the 1^st day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me [18 or] 23, not “Day of Cycle… 1”. A difference of [+17 or] +22 days (or [-43 or] -38)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Given the obvious self-contradictory data in the Chinese list of solar eclipses, I find two solar eclipses more or less exactly fitting the Chinese record as translated in Dr Legge’s book, but I find nothing to confirm which one of the two eclipses that is the correct one.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse, Visible at sunrise as partial or total in eastern China.

Mar 6, 599 BCE total solar eclipse, Visible at sunrise as partial or total in eastern China.

“No. XIV.” in the lists below: “-598…February… 26…” “Year of Cycle… 59” “Moon… IV” “Chinese Moon… IV” “Visible at Sunrise.”

Map showing the Mar 6, 599 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible at sunrise as partial or total in eastern China.

Re “Day of Cycle… 53”:

“Day of Cycle… 53” should mean the 53^rd day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me [52 or] 57, not “Day of Cycle… 53”. A difference of [-1 or] +4 days (or [+59 or] -56)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Partial solar eclipse, Visible in late PM or at sunset in most of China.

Sep 30, 591 BCE partial solar eclipse, Visible in late PM or at sunset in most of China.

“No. XV.” in the lists below: “-591…October… 5…” “Year of Cycle… 6” “Moon… VI” “Chinese Moon… XI” “Not visible.”

“Not visible” in China: Map showing the Oct 10, 592 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Accordingly, this eclipse is consistent with Dr Legge’s “BY CALCULATION” list (Moon #XI), but certainly not with his prior “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” list (Moon #VI).

Map showing the Sep 30, 591 BCE partial solar eclipse visibility path. Visible in late PM or at sunset in most of China. This is the one and only solar eclipse in 591-592 BCE that would have been visible in China. Albeit late, Sep 30 could be consistent with an exceptionally late spring if the Chinese calendar was then seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, I find this notation in Dr Legge’s “BY CALCULATION” list a powerful indication that said “BY CALCULATION” list, whenever disagreeing with his “AS RECORDED IN THE TEXT” list, is nothing more than Dr Legge’s own understanding. That is, not to be relied upon as reflecting the original eclipse event.

Re “Day of Cycle… 8”:

“Day of Cycle… 8” should mean the 8^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 15, not “Day of Cycle… 8”. A difference of +7 days (or -53 days)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Re “Day of Cycle… 40”:

“Day of Cycle… 8” should mean the 8^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 10, not “Day of Cycle… 40”. A difference of -30 days (or +30 days)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse visible as total or partial at noon or early PM in all of China.

May 9, 575 BCE total solar eclipse. Visible as total or partial eclipse at noon or early PM in all of China.

“No. XVI.” in the lists below: “-574…May… 1…” “Year of Cycle… 23” “Moon… VI” “Chinese Moon… VI” “Visible at noon.”

Map showing the May 9, 575 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible at noon or early PM in all of China.

Re “Day of Cycle… 3”:

“Day of Cycle… 3” should mean the 3^rd day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 55, not “Day of Cycle… 3”. A difference of +52 days (or -8)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Re “Day of Cycle… 3”:

“Day of Cycle… 3” should mean the 3^rd day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 60, not “Day of Cycle… 3”. A difference of +57 days (or -3)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

In a Chinese record of 37 solar eclipses, the Annals of Lu aka. Ch’un Ts’ew, Chun-tsiu, or Chun Chiu, of Confucius we find:

Total solar eclipse visible at sunrise or early AM as total or partial in most of China.

Oct 22, 574 BCE total solar eclipse. Visible at sunrise or early AM as total or partial eclipse in most of China.

“No. XVII.” in the lists below: “-573…October… 17…” “Year of Cycle… 24” “Moon… XII” “Chinese Moon… XI” “Visible at Morning.”

Map showing the Oct 22, 574 BCE total solar eclipse visibility path. Visible at sunrise or early AM as total or partial eclipse in most of China.

Re “Day of Cycle… 54”:

“Day of Cycle… 54” should mean the 54^th day in a recurring cycle of exactly 60 days. Using this basis:

I get the result shown below. But that gives me 51, not “Day of Cycle… 54”. A difference of -3 days (or +57 days)! Why? I don’t yet know!:

Conclusion:

Apparently correctly identified solar eclipse.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Comments and donations freely accepted at:

eMail: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com

You are hereby cordially invited to subscribe to our free email course:

You’ll discover firsthand the fundamentals for understanding Scripture time reckoning as used by the ancient historian Josephus as well as by all the authors of the Holy Scriptures! Much of this knowledge has - until now - been lost to the best of scholars for many centuries.

“Great truths which have been neglected and unappreciated for ages will be revealed by the Spirit of God, and new meaning will flash out of familiar texts. Every page will be illuminated by the Spirit of truth. The Bible is not sealed but unsealed. The most precious truths are revealed; the living oracles are heard by wondering ears, and the consciences of men are aroused into action.”

You will make many surprising and exciting discoveries re the exact dates for Jesus’ birth, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension… as well as the exact dates of many, many more events found in your Bible, especially re the New Testament times.

You’ll discover the exact dates for the 12+ Roman Caesars beginning with Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus…

You’ll discover the exact dates of most of the kings of Judah beginning with Hyrcanus in the 2^nd century BCE, Herod the Great, Agrippa, and many other Judean kings and proconsuls, e.g. Pontius Pilate…

You’ll discover many things re the Scripture traditions honored by all the disciples and believers of the Apostolic times – as well as by the Jews – traditions that have been long forgotten or not correctly restored when previously re-discovered…

Be prepared to re-think and to re-learn… Things may not be as you always thought they were… But you’ll decide!

It is a very simple Basics 101 type course entitled:

Tour Guide towards “Tuning into the Frequency of the Creator & Becoming Oriented in His Time…”

It is one short email per week for you to enjoy with your family and friends…

Click here to subscribe NOW!

Home

[1] The Nov 26, -1952 eclipse may be excluded as being a bit too far from Scorpii, and from the constellation Fang in particular.

[3] Original footnote: “September 20, 331 B.C.”

[4] Original footnote: “In 357 B.C. See the Dion, xxiv.”

[5] Original footnote: “This too establishes a date: August 23, 357 B.C.” Notice: The August 23, 357 BC eclipse was a solar, and not a lunar eclipse, and, that solar eclipse was definitely not visible from Sicily at all!

[6] Original footnote: “To the ancient reader, this is a very specific and meaningful piece of information. The "rising" meant is the heliacal rising, that is, the first day of a season on which a star rises just before the Sun, only to blink out very quickly in the latter's rays. The date varies for each star with the observer's latitude, and, much slower — at the rate at which the sun precesses thru the zodiac — over the centuries; in 357 B.C., the heliacal rising of Arcturus in Sicily was (give or take a day for my own lack of absolutely tip-top information) September 20th. Thruout classical Antiquity, therefore, it marked the approximate beginning of fall and the stormy season, which is why Arcturus suddenly blinks into our text at this point.”

[7] Original footnote: “This has been identified as the total lunar eclipse of Sep 1, 218 B.C….”

[8] SNB Oct 6, 15 BCE sunset: 17:23:18 with the moon 0° 24’ 30” above the eastern Jerusalem horizon; moonrise: 17:20:07 in eclipse, first visible portion: 17:20:40.

[9] SNB Oct 23, 15 BCE sunset: 17:03:54; moonset: 18:24:55; lag: 81 min 01 sec; illum.: 4.01% ==> Sun Nov 17, 15 BCE sunset was the beginning of Bul 25, 15 BCE. Sunset of March 30, 15 CE was almost certainly the Aviv New Moon. Thus, this Jupiter event took place on Day One of the second week following king Jeroboam’s feast… or, in modern terminology, the 2nd Advent before Christmas… That is, if that is indeed a true relationship – as it appear to me also this particular year: 2010 CE.

[10] exortus: “perf part pass masc nom sg [of exorior;] to come out, come forth, spring up, rise, appear.”

[11] crinitae, crinitus, crinio: “covered with hair, hairy, with flowing locks, long-haired.” Cf. footnote #18 below!

[12] stella, stellae, stello etc.: ”a star” vs. ”stella comans, i.e. a comet.” In his work De Vita Caesarum [The Twelve Caesars] Suetonius is using this word seven times only [There are 4 listings for ‘stello,’ which however are part of the 7 for listed for ‘stella.’ A comprehensive review of these passages has been made showing that the word ‘stella’ etc. without more is not used for referencing a comet. To indicate a comet ‘stella comans,’ ‘stella crinita,’ or ‘crinitae stellae’ is used.

[13] quam: “who? which? what? what kind of a?; in what manner? how? whereby? by what means? why?; Relat., in what manner, to what degree, how greatly, how, how much.”

[15] uocant = vocant: “pres ind act 3rd pl [of voco;] to call, summon, invoke, call together, convoke.”

[17] This selection is continued below all the way to 860 BCE, cf. the 918 BCE Zeng solar eclipse item below, which item is identifying 39 additional total, annular, or hybrid solar eclipses visible from anywhere near the pre-Hezekiah, pre-pole shift location of China during the 80 year period 940-860 BCE.

[18] Indeed, most of the solar eclipse dates as given in the “BY CALCULATION” list are off by +7±1 days in comparison to the dates provided at NASA’s eclipse pages.

[19] Referenced by W.T. Lynn, as per W.T. Lynn’s quoted words above! The title of Dr Legge’s book is The Chinese Classics, Vol V – The Ch’un Ts’ew with The Tso Chuen, by James Legge.