25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

398 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

all the reigns of the Babylonian kings given in the Canon, from<br />

Nabonassar (747–734 BC) to Nabonidus (555–539 BC), were in<br />

complete agreement with these older sources. (This study was later<br />

expanded and published in a British journal for interdisciplinarty<br />

studies, the British forum for the discussion of the catastrophe<br />

theories of Immanuel Velikovsky and others: <strong>Chronology</strong> &<br />

Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX, 1987, pp. 14–23.) I asked Professor<br />

Newton: ”How is it possible that Ptolemy’s astronomical data are<br />

wrong, and yet the king list, to which they are attached, is correct?”<br />

In his answer, dated August 11, 1978, Newton said: ”I am not<br />

ready to be convinced that Ptolemy’s king list is accurate before<br />

Nabopolassar [= before 625 BC], although I have high confidence<br />

that it is rather accurate for Nabopolassar and later kings.” He also<br />

pointed out: ”<strong>The</strong> basic point is that Ptolemy calculated the<br />

circumstances of the eclipses in the Syntaxis from his theories, and<br />

he then pretended that his calculated values were values that had<br />

been observed in Babylon. His theories are accurate enough to give the<br />

correct day of an eclipse, but he missed the hour and the magnitude.”<br />

Thus Ptolemy’s ”adjustments” of the eclipse observations were<br />

too small to affect the year, the month, and the day of an eclipse.<br />

Only the hour and the magnitude were affected. Ptolemy’s<br />

supposed ”adjustments” of the records of the ancient Babylonian<br />

eclipses, then, didn’t change the BCE dates that had been<br />

established for these observations. <strong>The</strong>y did not change the chronology!<br />

Further, Professor Newton was convinced that the king list was<br />

accurate from Nabopolassar and onwards. In other words, he was<br />

convinced that the whole Neo-Babylonian chronology from Nabopolassar<br />

through Nabonidus (625–539 BC) was accurate! Why?<br />

<strong>The</strong> reason was that Newton had made a very thorough study<br />

of some of the ancient Babylonian astronomical records that were<br />

independent of ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, including the two astronomical<br />

cuneiform texts designated VAT 4956 and Strm. Kambys. 400.<br />

From his examination of these two records, he had established that<br />

the first text referred to the year 568/67 BC and the second one to<br />

523 BC. He concluded: ”Thus we have quite strong confirmation<br />

that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable<br />

confirmation for Kambyses.” (<strong>The</strong> Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, 1977, p.<br />

375) <strong>The</strong>se findings were further emphasized in his next work, <strong>The</strong><br />

Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1, published in 1979,<br />

where he concludes on page 49: ”Nebuchadrezzar’s first year

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!