Ancient History: a Revised Chronology: An Updated Revision of Ancient History Based on New Archaeology Volume I

By Anthony Lyle

This book is a culmination of that research. After trashing his work 10 times and starting over, he managed to get a
revised chronology that seemed to be more accurate than that being put out by the status quo universities. It combines
secular / world history with Biblical history in a far more even and smoother match than that proposed by former
historians who have attempted the same. This is his version 12, which doesnt try to match different histories based on
dates, but rather by matching people and events and then applying revised dates to those events and people.
This work will call into question the conclusions of historians of the last 200 years, about the ancient periods of
time, and provide an alternative dating for those times. It is a World History in that it incorporates the ancient history of
India, China, Japan, as well as the traditional Middle Eastern and European societies of ancient times. It re-evaluates the
beginnings of civilization and the solar system, refuting common historical and scienti?? c beliefs of the modern world.
Documents that have previously been written off as Mythology have been re-evaluated as well, as they give a different
perspective of ancient times and what happened back then. The use and creation of calendars is an important feature
added to this work which is seldom taken into account by modern histories. Incorporated in this work are many of the
more recent archaeological ?? nds that have yet to be incorporated in status quo works and institutions. He makes no
apology for the fact that this is Biblically based, and the conclusions that have been reached by this work ?? t very well in
Biblical contexts and adds some understanding to the events that took place in the Biblical narratives.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: May 29, 2012
• ISBN: 9781468588095

Anthony Lyle

Anthony Lyle is a father, a grandfather, and a great grandfather. A truck driver, a programmer, and a brief stint in the Air Force during Vietnam. His wife passed away some years ago from cancer and has since remained a widower. He cares a great deal about his step-daughters and family. He has no main ties to any particular Christian denomination, but is a devout believer in Jesus Christ and God. He has spent some 30 years researching and studying the Bible, archaeology, world history, and some of the sciences such as Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and Biology to get a full round picture of the world. His objective is to help others understand their place in the Plan of God.

Book preview

AuthorHouse™

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.authorhouse.com

Phone: [phone]

© 2012 Anthony Lyle. All Rights Reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 05/16/2012

ISBN:  978-1-4685-8808-8 (sc)

           978-1-4685-8809-5 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012908647

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

US%26UKLogoColornew.ai

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part 1 Pre-History

   Chapter 1 Time

   Chapter 2 Calendars

   Chapter 3 Cosmology

   Chapter 4 Evolution Theory

   Chapter 5 Intelligent Design Theory

   Chapter 6 Historical design or plan of HaShem

   Chapter 7 Historical Landmarks

   Chapter 8 Pre-History History

Part 2 Early Civilization or Times of Ignorance

   Chapter 9 Creative Age

   Chapter 10 Age of Adam

   Chapter 11 Age of Cain; Ante-diluvian Civilization

   Chapter 12 Age of Noah or Age of United Nations

   Chapter 13 Deluge of Noah

   Chapter 14 New Civilizations

   Chapter 15 Babylon

   Chapter 16 Age of Divided Nations

Part 3 Times of the Jews

   Chapter 17 Age of Confusion continued

   Chapter 18 Age of Promise or Age of Isaac

   Chapter 19 Age of Law or Age of Moses

   Chapter 20 Period of Judges and Hyksos

Part 4 Period of the Kings of the Jews: Empires of the World

   Chapter 21 Period of the Kings

   Chapter 22 Divided Kings

Introduction

Most histories are done with the intent of merging events from religious books into a conventionally accepted status quo version of secular history. The Bible (Tanach in Hebrew world), in particular, is often viewed as an error prone or even mythological list of events in the eyes of most secular historians. More often than not, the Bible (Tanach) is simply regarded as a book of moral explanations and laws, even by many religious leaders. Fewer still take into account the overall Plan of God in the overall schema of history. There have been a few who value the validity of the Bible / Tanach as a valid and accurate history. The mainstream approach to such histories is to take a standard world history and fit the Biblical events within them. Even then, secular historians accept such works with a keen eye to make sure that such histories do not upset the status quo of history. Attempts to revise history chronologies have been met with a great deal of resistance. Immanuel Velikovsky’s works were banned by major universities for over 20 years before it came to light that many of his predictions and revision recommendations were found to be accurate.

More recently, the weaknesses of the former conventional history (of western society) have drawn more attention as archaeology bears out the needs for revisions. Even with such weaknesses being revealed, university professors and scholars continue to put out the same old rhetoric to their students. Revising their lectures would take hundreds of man hours, and cost hundreds of thousands in new books. To determine a new acceptable revision would take even more time as table debates considered how to revise the conventional history. It is unlikely that such changes can take place with such daunting obstacles in place to prevent them.

Such attitudes have reduced God a mysterious and inactive entity. He is considered as necessary to the uneducated masses to help give some meaning to life. If the scholasticism had their way, He would be removed entirely and reduce history to a list of events and dates without any plan or meaning. They have removed the very essence of history other than to glorify each other on their magnificent achievements in their scholasticism.

It is the premise in this work that God is not inactive. He is not mysterious as claimed. It is the premise here that He gave us a written plan of what He was going to do and what He did. It is the purpose here to restore, to a select few, faith in God and in His written word. It is the purpose here, to restore faith that there is a definite plan to God’s methods and He is an active participant in those plans.

Conventional history starts by a presumed accurate secular or world history based on the interpretations of men and the archaeological records. It should be easy to see from this starting statement how error prone this method is. It should be clear to anyone that we are far from finding the majority of archaeological records necessary to put together a complete and accurate history. It is doubtful that enough records even exist to put together a complete and accurate history on the basis of archaeology alone. In spite of this, the traditional method used by most historians, including many theological historians, has been to take an established chronology based on human interpretation of archaelogical records and then fit events in from different religious sources. Such works are disqualified without regard or dissected until a single error is found to disqualify the work from acceptance. Never mind that the traditional method is filled with errors as pointed out by Immanuel Velikovsky, Dr. Donovan Courville, and David Rohl. The established secular chronology is placed on the table and then Biblical events are matched and debated and dated in accordance with the established conventional timeline. If the events become impossible to match (due to inaccurate dates of the established chronology), it is the Biblical events that are considered to be in error which leads to distrust of the Bible as a historical source.

This revised method takes the approach that the Bible has the accurate record and that the interpretation of archaeology is in error, when disagreements exist. It becomes logical that if two stories disagree, either one or both of them must be in error of the truth. It is the premise here that it is the interpretation of the archaeological or secular records that are in error. The method then becomes to attempt to provide an accurate chronology of the Bible and fit secular events within the timeframe of the revised chronology. One might argue that an error in interpretation of the Bible can lead to the same error prone conclusions as in the traditional method. This argument is valid. If any starting point is in error, it will be impossible to reach a valid and accurate conclusion. To insure our ability to accuracy, it is the premise here that God supplied for us measuring points (within the Bible) to assure an accurate interpretation of dating of events. The plan of God is an open guide that can be used to assure accuracy, where secular history has no such plan available. Nor does world history have any set measuring lines to assure accuracy.

PART 1

Pre-History

Chapter 1 Time

1. Events are relative to their assigned dates: Applying dates to events gives the events some kind of relevance in time for our understanding. The problem with ancient history is that there does not appear to have been a universal calendar system in place to apply dates to the events. Each society had its own calendar system. Early events were never related to any calendar of the time until the Greeks began to use the count of the Greek Olympiads. Until then, events were given reference against other events. One can see that if a given event is dated wrong, all matching events will also end up with error prone dates. Immanuel Velikovsky shows this by indicating that the traditional nineteenth dynasty of Egypt is in error by some 600 years. He proposes that if we move the nineteenth dynasty to the twenty-sixth dynasty (both of them being the same with the same people but of different names), and remove the nineteenth and twentieth dynasty from the current traditional place, the entire Dark Ages of the Greeks disappears. By giving the nineteenth dynasty a wrong period of time, the matching Greek timeline must have a Dark Ages inserted to account for the same period of time.

Traditionally, western historians apply proleptic or assumed Gregorian / Julian dates to events before 40 B.C. This means that the calendar or the dates assigned to the events did not really exist, but in order to give a valid reference for events before the advent of the Julian calendar, we assume that they exist. With the importance of dates in relation to historical events, it becomes necessary to define some date relative terms. Many of these terms are elementary but they bear defining for the sake of consistent communication.

Table 1: How an incorrectly matched history of one society can affect history of other societies:

2. Astronomical related time: These units are based on astronomical observations of earth in relation to the solar system. Many are often taken for granted in day to day life and most of them do not require any complex technological explanation. For example, the day can be measured in a high-level technological laboratory down to the number of seconds for an exact day. For everyday life, one day is simply the observance of one period of daylight and one period of night. The following table suggests the most common measurements of time based on astronomical observance.

Table 6: Definitions of astronomical time based on observation or calculation:

3. Days: Ancient peoples cared little about sidereal days. The day was one period of light and one period of darkness and was broken out into even periods of watches (in most societies). This is still commonly true today where the sidereal day and the tropical day become important only within the scientific community. Modern measurements show that the day is not exactly 24 hours, but for most historical dating schemes, this is irrelevant. The day is still marked by an average 24 hour period of 1 part day and 1 part night.

The origin of the hour came down to watches in placing guards on patrol in ancient times. The night and day was evenly divided into 2 hour watches for the most part. The measurement of the said watches were based on the motion of the earth against the stars (at night) or against the sun in the day. The further break down of the hour becomes different between societies. Western society divides the hour into even 60 minutes, originating in the ancient Babylonian society. Jewish time breaks the hour down into Chalakim (1080 chalakim per hour). The origination of the Hebrew breakdown is based on the even measurements of the moon. This breakdown of the hour allows for an even measurement of the month by the moon without using decimals. At the time of this writing, it is believed that the Arabic nations use minutes, the same as in western cultures according Jason Retzer (modern Arabic translator).

Days start at different times based on different cultures. While the definition of a day is very much standard, regardless of location or society, the start of the day is a different matter. In the west, the determination has been made in modern history to start the day in the middle of the night (midnight). In this case, the 24 hour count begins at around the middle of the night and the middle of the day becomes the 12 hour mark. This is not true with all cultures. Egyptians, at least the ancient Egyptians, began their day at sunrise. This becomes hour 0 and the minute before that is 23:59. The Hebrew society starts the day at sundown, based on the Biblical definition of a day in chapter 1 of Genesis / Bereshit. This difference can make date matching difficult depending on the time of day. Normally, the start of the two days is compared for a date matching. Egyptian days started 12 hours after the Hebrew days started. This means that Nissan 14 of the Hebrew calendar could be matched with either Egyptian day 13 of the same month or day 14 depending on the time. The Julian Day Count (or any other day count method) is the way to match dates without regard to time of day.

Table 3: Definitions of start of the day:

4. Month: There is no set definition for a month given in chapter 1 of Genesis / Bereshit. The month came along later, but it was already being observed by the time of Noah and Abraham. The month in ancient times was totally dependent on the observation of the moon. The new moon signified a new month without regard to the number of days. This observation usually required 2 witnesses in most cultures. The month has since become empirical with set definitions in many calendars. The Hebrew and the Islamic calendars still keep months by lunar observation. Many other calendars no longer regard the moon in the monthly calculations.

5. Seasons: While the months are not outlined in Genesis, the seasons are mentioned. The seasons are climatic observations and closely related to the earth’s revolution around the sun in relation to the constellations which earmark the climate changes of the earth in different parts of the world. Spring in the Northern Hemisphere is marked by the earth’s entry into the constellation of Aries as it circles the sun. Many cultures did not have 4 seasons. Egypt started out with only 3 seasons each consisting of 4 months of 30 days each. These seasons followed their growing season and the inundation of the Nile much better than a 4 season year would have.

6. Year: In ancient times, the year was based on either of the Equinoxes and counted the first of the year from the earth’s crossing of the equinox. This would be the 1st day of the year. In our modern world, New Year’s Day is different between nations and cultures. The western calendar starts the year about 1 and a half weeks after winter starts. Archaeological evidence tells us that ancient societies started their years around spring time (some historians would disagree). In this investigation, no ancient record has been found to dispute this finding. Egyptologists disagree as some believe that Egypt originally started their year at the Autumnal Equinox. Some Hebrew historians believe this was true of the ancient Hebrew calendars as well citing that the first day of Creation took place in Tishrei (fall season).

Table 6: Definition of year start in ancient cultures:

7. Additional time measurements: Each culture adds a twist on particular time measurement definitions. The following table gives some added definitions to time measurements.

Table 7: Definitions of time based on religious or political cycles:

8. Biblical / Hebrew Time Measurements: The 50 year cycle has relevance in many societies, but often they are planetary in nature. The Mayan was believed to have observed a 50 year cycle based on the Venus cycle after 1500 B.C. In particular concern for this revised chronology, this reference is a Judeo / Christian measurement. Very few historians even acknowledge this cycle. The Sabbath Week of Years and the Yovel or Jubilee periods become very important in historical chronology interpretation. During the Shabbat year, no planting was allowed and the people were required to eat what grew naturally or from the surplus of the previous 6 years. No planting was allowed at the end of the sixth year throughout until the end of the Shabbat year. The Bible (Torah) promised that the 6th year harvest would be enough for 2 years. This cycle is a time of refreshment for slavery, for financial freedom, and for the return of lands to the original family. This measurement plays an important part in understanding the overall Plan of HaShem. To ignore this measurement of time is to miss out on an important understanding of the overall purpose of HaShem to restore freedom from sin to mankind.

The length of the Yovel (Jubilee Period) is one of debate, some interpreting the Yovel to be 49 years in length. James Ussher, William Whiston, Joseph Scaliger, and Floyd Nolan Jones follow after the traditional mainstream Hebrew by interpreting a 49 year cycle. Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Eusebius all believed that the Yovel was a 50 year cycle. Rashi, a noted Jewish Sage and historian, believes it should be a 50 year cycle as well. This revised chronology takes the 50 year cycle interpretation based on the following Hebrew documents.

Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:8-22 "Count off seven Sabbaths of years—seven times seven years—so that the seven Sabbaths of years amount to a period of forty-nine years. Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan. The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. For it is a jubilee and is to be holy for you; eat only what is taken directly from the fields. In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to his own property. If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other. You are to buy from your countryman on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And he is to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what he is really selling you is the number of crops. Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am HaShem your God. Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety. You may ask, ‘What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?’ I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in." (Italics mine)

The Talmud has this to say about the Yovel: "Therefore it says, it is a Jubilee to you, the fiftieth year, [to show that] you are to sanctify the fiftieth year, but not the fifty-first year." The Hizkuni believes that Sefira and Shavuot are somehow reminders for the really important mitzvoth: Shemita and Yovel. Every seventh year is considered a Shemita year, meaning that land in Eretz Ysrael may not be worked and that all debts owed by Jews to other Jews are canceled. Every fiftieth year is considered Yovel (Jubilee), meaning that all Jewish slaves are freed and that all land which has changed hands in the years since the last Yovel now returns to the hands of its original owner. What clues the Hizkuni in to the connection between Sefira/Shavuot and Shemita/Yovel? There are several likely possibilities

The Midrash also reports on the Yovel:  . . . count forty-nine days, and sanctify the fiftieth, just like Yovel (Sifra 167:8). The Ramban emphasizes it further: the number of days from the day of waving (the Omer offering) until Yom Tov (Shavuot) is as the number of years of the Shemita until the Yovel; the reasoning for both is identical. Thus, it behooves us to clarify this connection, and then to try to assimilate this understanding into our observance of the mitzvah of Sefiras HaOmer and preparation for Shavuot

The Talmud: Rosh Hashanah 9a And the Rabbis [— what do they make of these words]? — [They say]: You are to count the fiftieth year, but you are not to count the fifty-first, to exclude the view of R. Judah, who said that the fiftieth year is reckoned both ways. We are here told that this is not so. Rashi indicates that we count seven Shemita years and then we consecrate the fiftieth year. This fiftieth year is not the first year of the next cycle. Tosafot says: ‘you are to count the fiftieth year (as fiftieth to the Jubilee), but you are not to count the fiftieth year as one (to the following septennate)’

Yechezkel (Ezekiel) 40:1: In the fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the fall of the city—on that very day the hand of HaShem was upon me and he took me there.

According to the Talmud, this was a jubilee year, while the Release years (Shemita) and Jubilee years did not commence until the land had been divided. The calculation is then as follows: The Temple was built four hundred and eighty years after the Shemoth (Exodus), which was four hundred and forty years after their entry into Eretz Israel. The Temple stood four hundred and ten years, making a total of eight hundred and fifty years from their entry until its destruction, which is the thirty-seventh Jubilee. Deducting fourteen years for conquest and division, as these did not count for Jubilee, we find that it was destroyed fourteen years before a Jubilee year, and therefore the fourteenth year after its destruction was a Jubilee year. (The Talmud deduces that this was a Jubilee year independently of this calculation.)

Arachin 13a According to the Midrash (Tehillim (Psalms) 90:4), the Torah preceded the world by 2000 years. In accordance with the Torah command designating every fiftieth year to be Yovel (the jubilee year, in which farmers in Israel are forbidden to work the land), the 2000th year was the fortieth Yovel year. Thus, the first five days of creation were therefore the last five days of the fortieth Yovel year.

It is the premise in this revised chronology that HaShem intended for 2 Yovel counts. The first starts when Adam inhabits or possesses the land after leaving the Garden of Eden. This means that the first Yovel count applies to all mankind. The second only applies to Jewish history in particular. It begins sometime after Joshua leads the Israelites into Canaan to inhabit or possess the land of Israel. It becomes obvious why the Hebrew history does not enjoin the Adamic Yovel interpretation. To them the Yovel is defined by Jewish law as given to Moses on Mount Sinai. It was not defined before Moses, and so does not apply to goyim. The problem with their interpretation is that it would appear that Abraham and Jacob were both very aware of the laws long before they were given to Moses. This would imply that the laws were actually in effect before they were given in written form. This would then mean that the Yovel should be applied to the time when mankind first inhabited the land after it was given to Satan.

Satan gained control of earth with the sin of Adam and all humans became debtors to Satan (via our sin). It is the premise here that the Messiah (in His 2nd return) will free us from this contract with Satan and restore freedom to us from being slaves to our sin. It becomes necessary by this premise to understand the nature of the Yovel and the count if we are to have a complete chronology. For a complete listing of Yovel years according to different interpretations refer to Appendix 2.

Ages have habitually been arbitrarily defined periods of time, but they do have Biblical support. In relation to relatively stable and easily measured time spans, ages have no real definition except that given by a particular perspective. From a geological perspective, the age is a period of evolutionary growth. This can be in the perspective of life or geological periods. Conventional history applies Metal ages to technological developments (Bronze Age, Copper Age, etc.). From a theological perspective, it usually refers to a subjective period of time defined by theologians. These ages are usually defined in reference to catastrophic events of the Bible / Tanach. Ages are often defined in relation to a dispensation, a different kind of historical breakdown by religious definition.

Table 8a: Shabbat year

Illustration 8b: Yovel definitions from different perspectives

image001.tif

Chapter 2 Calendars

9. Introduction to calendars: Calendars are manmade tools used to track time. They have become almost indispensable tools of our civilization. It is surprising how historians devote very little time in the discussion of calendars, often taking for granted that the Julian / Gregorian calendars are proleptic. Equally taken for granted are the modern day algorithms used to calculate for dates in the distant past. The accuracy of such algorithms over long periods of time is unverifiable. Algorithms can be shown to be error prone over these long periods of time. The advent of the computer is said to rectify this error, but the computer is only as accurate as the algorithm or program used to define ancient dates.

It has already been stated that calendars and dates were not always used by ancients to define an event in time. Early calendars were usually for agriculture, financial, religious, and political uses and often did not include a year count. The first historians to use calendar date systems for relating events were the Greek historians who referred to a particular Olympiad (4 year period) and year of the Olympiad to give an event a year reference (2nd year of the 98th Olympiad is one example). It wasn’t until Rome was fully under the rule of Augustus Caesar that calendars were used to refer to particular year names or numbers and month and day dates.

If one were to stick to western historical sources, using a Julian / Gregorian reference would probably be adequate. The early Hebrew and Christian historians did not use Julian / Gregorian dates until around 200 A.D. Many early Christian historians used a similar reference for dating events as will be used in this revised chronology. This reference is based on a Biblical date reference. Julius Africanus often referred to A.Abr (Year of Abraham) or A.Ad (Year of Adam) in his references to events. The original Hebrew history (Seder Olam) used similar notation referred to here as A.M. (Anno Mundi or Year of the World based on their year count from creation in Genesis / Bereshit). The Anno Mundi system will be used in this chronology as well, although referenced as Anno Torah (A.T.) to distinguish it from the A.M. of the Hebrews.

It is easy to see by the table that most common calendar systems are somehow astronomically based. It is the status quo to assume that astronomical calendar systems are the most accurate. It is believed that ancient dates for astronomical events can be verified by calculations in algorithms of our current astronomy. That is not the view taken in this revised chronology.

The first calendars are believed to have come from the ancient Babylonian or Mesopotamian culture. That is not the view taken here. It is believed that calendars already existed in Ante-Diluvian times, noted by the months and days counted during the Flood of Noah.

Without exception, archaeology supports that all ancient cultures before 700 B.C. used calendars that were comprised of 360 days per year. William Whiston, "New Theory of the Earth, showed that classic authors of the ancient world all supported the idea that the ancient calendars were made of 360 day per year calendars. The Nidana Sutra" of India gives exact calculations for the calendars of ancient India totaling 360 days per year. The Arabhatiya, an old Indian work, also gives exact calculations for a 360 day calendar. The corrections were not made to the calendars of India until after 700 B.C. That the ancient Babylon calendar only had 360 days was known long before Babylon had cuneiform. Their mathematical system was based on the number 60 which was the way the earth and the calendar were broken down. The ancient Assyrians, local to the Babylonians, also had a calendar year of 360 days, according to Immanuel Velikovsky, "Worlds in Collision". In ancient Greece, Cleobulus defined a year of 360 days. This was later changed around 600 B.C. to add the 5 days that were suddenly missing between calendar and actual location of the Equinox. One of the 7 sages of Greece (from Thrace), born around 700 B.C., corrected the calendar in Greece. In Rome, the first Roman calendar consisted of a year of 360 days and was corrected by Numa after 700 B.C. In Egypt, the Canopus Decree states specifically that the calendar had 360 days per year in the ancient past. The Eber Papyrus from the eighteenth dynasty gives the same calculations for the year. The Book of Sothis indicates that the Hyksos established a calendar of 360 days per year. The additional 5 days, epagomenal days, were added after 700 B.C. and, due to the conditions surrounding these days, were considered bad luck, with the decree that no work was allowed on these days.

The Mayans added 5 days to a 360 day per year calendar after 700 B.C., which were also considered bad luck days. The Peruvians also had a 360 day year calendar in ancient times. Finally, even China had a calendar of 360 days in ancient times. The evidence is overwhelming in that ancient calendars consisted of a year of 360 days evenly. All of them had months of exactly 30 days which aligned with the moon at that time. None of this is reported in the conventional history books or it is assumed that the ancients were in error. The same historians are quick to note the correction of the added 5 days, but they seldom explain that the entire world was making the same corrections at the same approximate time after 700 B.C.

It would appear that the difference between ancient calendars had nothing to do with the number of days in the month or year, but mainly with the names associated to the months and years. All of the ancient societies started their year in spring with the new moon closest to the Spring Equinox. Exodus 12 states specifically that Nissan is the first month (Abib) which falls in the spring of the year. This was still true in the time of Esther (see Book of Esther), who namely indicates that Adar was the 12th month or last month of the year.

After the catastrophic events around 750 – 700 B.C., calendars around the world were modified and not in the same manner. Egypt added 5 epogomenal days to a new Empirical type calendar. The Hebrews had to modify their calendar to represent a Metonic (Greek historian) lunar solar calendar that would track their dates by both lunar and solar cycles. Their festival year required an accurate accounting of lunar related months. The Romans abandoned the lunar cycle and went with the solar cycle due to the agricultural growing seasons. Some ancient societies began to observe not one, but multiple calendar systems at once. China and India have several different calendar systems in operation side by side.

Table 9a: Calendar types

Illustration 9b: History of calendars over 6000 years

image002.tif

10. Calendars after 715 B.C.: In order for ancient calendars to have varied from the modern design, it would have to mean that the solar system was not always the same static solar system of our modern world. This has scholastic shaking residual effects. Not only is our history in error, but the very foundation of cosmological history is shaken as well.

The modern perspectives taken by different cultures to correct the calendars have led to the modern problems of date matching that affect historians drastically. To match events between historians of different cultures, it becomes necessary to be able to match dates between calendar systems of different cultures. This becomes even more complicated if the premise of this revised chronology is true about the catastrophic changes in the earth in relation to the solar system and in particular to the sun and moon. Without exact knowledge of when the changes took place, there is no way to accurately match dates before 700 B.C. Most, if not all, modern calendars take the stance based on traditional science assumptions that the solar system has never changed since its formation. This means that they have dated their ancient historical events upon a calendar system and an astronomical system that did not exist before 700 B.C. and is different than true conditions of the solar system of that time. In short, dated events by most modern historians before 700 B.C. are in error.

Since different calendars are used around the world, it becomes necessary to accurately convert a date from one calendar system to another. Business is probably the main concern of such conversions, but historical dating is another. Western history books would be too confusing if most historians gave references in the Hebrew calendar system. They would make no sense to the western student of history without a complete knowledge of the Hebrew calendar system. The same holds true for the Hebrew student in using Gregorian dates (although at present the Gregorian calendar is recognized as the status quo around the world, including China and India for business reasons). It becomes necessary to have an accurate method of converting dates from one calendar system to another. This need was seen early on. Joseph Scaliger came up with a solution that has made conversions considerably easier. He created a system of counting days between different calendar systems. Calendars are then converted to a day count which can be reversed in the desired calendar system to come up with a matching date that agrees with both calendars.

Counting day’s offers one solution, but it does not solve all the problems. In the case of trying to match an ancient Gregorian date (using a solar year of 365.2422 days) with an ancient calendar that uses the 360 day per year system, the day count method causes floating of one calendar through another. While the day counts may result in a calendar match, the seasons and the time of the year between the two calendar systems do not match with accurate historical settings. This revised chronology recognizes two methods of calendar conversion. The first is the day counting system devised by Scaliger. The second is matching by season. This method matches the dates by year (giving a correct year match between the two calendars) and then counts the days of the year in each calendar system based on a matching point, such as the Spring Equinox. This would result in a date match that corresponded to the time of year for the event in each of the calendars that matched.

1. Algorithm for Day count: Calendar Date 1 => Day Count => Calendar Date 2

2. Algorithm for Season match:

a. Calendar Date 1 (year) => Calendar Date 2 (year)

b. Calendar Date 1 (day of year) => same number of days in Calendar 2 from a matched point in year (usually Spring Equinox).

Regardless of the method used, the farther back one attempts to match calendar dates, the less likely a successful match is likely to succeed. Even the most sophisticated program using the most accurate computer available cannot guarantee that the algorithm used is accurate to time periods over 500 years ago. For one thing, ancient calendars were subject to human manipulation. This is particularly true for the Julian calendar before 8 A.D. Adjustments and changes were often made to the calendar without any record of such changes being made. The Hebrew calendar was often manipulated by the priests before it became systematized.

Secondly, the possibility of round off errors based on decimal astronomical calculations causes issues even in current calendars. Different perspectives change as to whether to count the days by minutes or by astronomical observation. Using the minute calculations, now possible by computers, days are added or subtracted to account for the loss or gain of minutes in current calendar algorithms.

There are a number of Christian prophetic interpretations written that try to use such date matching techniques to count days and convert the dates to prove that the prophetic prediction is valid. Such validation is useless based on an accurate understanding of how calendars work and their conversion algorithms. It will be shown that over long periods of time, different calendars will count a different number of days for the same large number of years. This means that such date matching is invalid without any other issue even being considered.

Date matching in this revised chronology is based on Seasonal matching techniques rather than day counting techniques. The floating years of the day counting technique gives an unrealistic conversion of dates for the setting of the events. Knowing that they are inaccurate, all Gregorian dates given for ancient history matches of Biblical dates should be taken with a grain of salt. They are best guess matches at most and should not be used to support prophetic validations. Aside from the errors, history has a strong reliance on calendar dates and as such, the dates given here and by other sources are taken at face value and assumed to be correct to the degree of the historian’s research capabilities. Dates still supply a strong frame of reference for events. It is the premise of this revised chronology that the Bible / Tanach offers an accurate date reference for events within the Biblical framework.

An example would be an archaeological record of an Egyptian pharaoh that particularly dictated a month and day and a year of his particular reign for an event. Years can be relatively well matched between calendar systems as it is very difficult to lose or gain an entire year between calendar conversions. The month and day can be matched quite well with other calendar systems, but usually only by using the seasonal match method. Conversions of this type of record can be very reasonably matched to a corresponding Gregorian or Hebrew date, accepting that there still might be a day or two of error between the conversion dates.

In our western world, there are 3 known flavors of day counts known for calendar conversion use; Julian Day Count, Lillian Day Count, and the Rata Die Count. This revised chronology will introduce the Dies Torah Day Count (which attempts to count days from creation). Refer to Appendix 2 Table A2.2 to see day counts for different calendar systems over long periods of time.

Julian Day Count: This is the most widely known day counting system for calendar experts. It is used for algorithms around the world to convert calendar systems. It is based on the Julian calendar, but was not named after the Julian calendar. Joseph Scaliger came up with this system in the 1700’s and named it after his father, Julian Scaliger. He derived the system by calculating known cycles back to a common starting year, which he determined to be 4713 B.C. January 1, 4713 B.C. became day 0. The day before, December 31, 4712 B.C. became day 1. Since the Gregorian calendar differs from the Julian calendar by 3 days every 400 years, the starting date for the Gregorian calendar is November 24, 4712 B.C. The starting date of each calendar becomes known as the Epoch for the calendar system.

Lillian Day Count: When Rome decreed the Julian calendar be revised in 1582 A.D., a new day count system was devised based on the start date for the Gregorian calendar (Oct 15, 1582 A.D.). This became day 1 of the Lillian Day count system, but this system is rarely used. This day is equal to 2299160 J.D. One such problem is that not all countries accepted the Roman change, in particular Protestant countries that did not recognize Papal decrees. Some countries didn’t accept the change until in the early 1900’s. This gave rise to dual calendars used in Europe and the U.S. for many years. The 2 calendars could differ by as much as 11 days.

Rata Dies Count: This is a modern derivative of the Julian system created by Edward M. Reingold and Nachum Dershowitz. They came to the same conclusions about the inaccuracy of algorithms over longer periods of time. They determined to cut the error some by determining some point where the errors could be reduced or even removed. They assigned Jan 1, 1 A.D. as the Epoch for their Rata Die count (equal to 1721425.5 J.D.). All of their algorithms use this system for day counts to reduce anomaly errors in their algorithms. The extra .5 is due to the fact that they start their day at midnight, exactly opposite of the Julian Day count system which starts the day at noon.

Dies Torah Count: This system is introduced here to establish the calendar system used in the Bible. Counting days is the only way to determine the day of the week against the day of the year. There are several references in the Bible which give such matches and allow us to determine the calendar in use by the Bible at the time. It might be mentioned that the Jews prohibit day counting as it might be used to attempt to calculate the coming of the Messiah which is illegal. Attempting to use this system to predict the Second Coming will prove to be quite futile in any case.

Often archaeology reveals a list of kings with corresponding numbers of years that they ruled. This is nice, but the problem is that the issue of accession or non-accession dating can cause havoc with the counting of the years. With accession dating, the last year of the preceding king is not counted in the successor’s years. In non-accession dating, both predecessor and successor count the same year twice. This can lead to doubling of numbers of years in a listing and leads to an error in counting the overall number of years in a given list. The chart shows the difference in just 2 kings between the 2 systems. One counts a total of 4 years for the 2 kings, even though the true count should be only 3 years. Coronation month can often be an issue in counting years, although to a lesser degree than that of the accession/non-accession error.

Illustration 10: Accession versus non-accession year counts:

image003.tif

Chapter 3 Cosmology

11. The conventional universe: The conventional concept of our universe is based on the evolutionary theory of development. The formation of the universe has been one of controversy among scientists for the last century. Contrary to common belief, the exact formation of the universe is unknown from the scientific perspective. No one knows how it formed, when it formed, and how big it is. Everything about the universe known in the scientific community is theoretical in nature, not known fact.

The Big Bang theory states that the universe came from one ball of energy that exploded to create space or the universe in some kind of plasma state. Early concepts included the belief that the universe was slowly collapsing, or shrinking. The current belief is that the universe is expanding at approximately the speed of light. Along with this idea is the concept of an eternal oscillation universe. This would indicate that there have been and will be multiple universes, each one collapsing down to nothingness before it explodes into a new universe. This belief supports that the universe would have existed for an eternity of time, each life cycle lasting billions of years before it contracted down again. A variation of this is that it does not quite collapse down to nothingness.

Scientists believe that by using light refraction from objects at the end of the universe, they can see approximately how far those objects are and give a guess as to the size of the universe. This in turn leads to another theory that the age of the universe can be estimated based on this estimated size against the speed of light. There is no real answer as to the real beginning of the universe. It simply does not exist in conventional evolutionary history or science. The common denominator in all of the standard scientific theories and explanations is the lack of a supreme being, i.e. God. If the answer cannot be attained through natural science, then the answer is not attained.

The conventional view of the solar system is based on Newtonian physics. The formation of the solar system is not the same thing as the formation of the universe. The solar system contains the sun and the planets, including a multitude of moons, asteroids, and comets. The conventional solar system is believed to have been static (with small catastrophic changes taking place) for millions of years. This theory is very evolutionary based in that it requires long periods of time for stable and slow processes to work. The formation of the planets is based on the theories of Sir Isaac Newton. In these theories, clouds of dust conglomerated over time to form the bodies that we call planets. The stars rotate and cause the dust to revolve and thus the planets began to move around the central star we call the sun. The operative parts of Newton’s theories are mass and gravity. Force is created by the two to keep the planets moving around the sun.

As with the universe, the age of the solar system is unknown as it is unknown how long the gravitational forces would take to create the planets from particles of dust. Certainly, the age of the solar system is many billions of years younger than the universe according to traditional physics and science, but the exact number escapes us. There are many problems with this theory, the main one being that under such a theory it would make logical sense that the planets would have formed similar rotations and revolutions consistent with the similar forces applied on them. Our modern solar system does not have consistent patterns for planetary rotations or revolutions. For instance, some planets rotate in the wrong direction.

The classical formula derived by Newton is Force = (Mass of object 1) times (Mass of object 2) and the result of that divided by the distance squared between them. The result of this is multiplied by G (constant of gravity). The formula is F = G ((M1 * M2) / (R ^2)). This is in essence the formula for gravity that is believed to operate on the planets to keep them in space. The two objects or planets would then pull toward each other and the gravity would increase as they came closer together. The problem is that this formula doesn’t work. If this formula worked, the moon would be falling toward earth and that simply isn’t the case. The answer given to us to explain why it doesn’t fall is that the motion of the moon is enough to keep in space. As they come closer together, the upper part of the formula increases which increases the pull toward one another. This would in essence cause the two objects to collide eventually.

Dr. Peet Schutte, an African mathematician, has expounded how this theory or formula is contradictory to every known law of physics known to science. He uses four known cosmic laws to show that this foundation of science is false; Lagrangian System, Roche Limit, The Titius Bode Law, and the Coanda Affect. It is outside of the scope of this work to go into detail about these laws and how they contradict Newtonian physics, but Schutte’s ideas are supported by many scientists of recent years.

One of the main scientific assumptions that we have been taught is that the speed of light is constant. Over the last 50 years, this has been proven false by many scientific societies, but it is not published. The Naval Research Academy clocked a photon at 202,000 miles per second in 1967, (Joseph A Cater, "The Awesome Lifeforce). This is 16,000 miles per second faster than the regular speed of light. This violates what we have been taught that nothing can go faster than light. Since then, it has been shown that the speed of light is slowing down, gradually which violates the fact that it is constant! This creates havoc with the well-known Theory of Relativity" of Einstein, something that Einstein already suspected in his later years. In his theory, the speed of light is a constant that does not change. If this constant becomes a variable (changeable rate) then the theory doesn’t hold much water. When Einstein began to delve into Quantum Physics, there were several concepts that came to light that showed his theory might fall through the cracks. He commented that he regretted ever becoming involved in the Quantum Physics arena.

Illustration 11a: Evolutionary concept of Universe expansion:

image004.tif

One of the main assumptions of science / historians / cosmologists is that the solar system is static and has not changed in millions of years. Recent cosmological theories have developed into a principal called steady state cosmology. Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer came up with this concept. It is an extreme case of uniformitarianism. The concept is fairly recent but has tremendous following by scientists. It is in essence a continuous creation theory, because the key concepts are that of continual evolution of matter out of nothing. In his theory, atoms are not created explosively (catastrophically), but continually and the beginning of the universe is meaninglessly because it is timeless. Some scholars admit that these are theories and yet, the theories are taught without exclusion in every university of the western world as the only viable answer to the history of the universe and the solar system. In the United States, alternative theories are not allowed to be taught.

Illustration 11b: Relative image of what the solar system looks like with imaginary lines for the orbital path.

image005.tif

Illustration 11c: Solar system with respect to the mass and size of the planets.

image006.tif

12. Revised Universal Theory: While there is no argument against a big bang theory, there is considerable argument against the assumption that the speed of light has remained constant for millions of years. This revised theory suggests that around 6000 years ago, the speed of light was many thousands or even millions of times faster than now. Such a change would cause the universal expansion to take far less time than billions of years and for the universe to be much younger than it has been estimated by modern cosmologists.

The revised Solar System is based on archaeological evidence and written records. Immanuel Velikovsky gives multiple records from ancient societies that show that the planets that are assumed to have existed for millions of years did not exist more than 5000 years ago. The planet Venus appeared as late as 1400 B.C. They did not inhabit their current orbits until as late as 700 B.C. He proposes that the ancient mythologies of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and the Greeks were not just stories made up by some imagination, but were replica stories representing what men were witnessing in the skies. The emergence of certain deities (based on planetary influence) follows the appearance of the planets. Ancient star maps do not show a solar system congruent to our modern solar system. Planets are missing which are currently easily visible in our modern sky by the naked eye. The knowledge of the moons of Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus could not possibly have been made up. The ancient mythologies are amazingly accurate in their description of the moons, planets that cannot be seen by the naked eye in our current system. This is only possible if the planets were somehow much closer to earth in the past than they are now. The ancient tablets of the Mayans and the Babylonians for Venus and some of the planets suggest that their orbits are not consistent with the current orbits of Venus and yet, modern scientists insist that these planets have not changed their course in millions of years. The difference is put down to error of the observers. In some cases, the information is thrown out of any modern day conclusions. The question is how the ancients made such mistakes about the orbit of Venus, a planet that is easily visible to the naked eye daily by leaving it out of their star maps of the ancient times before 1400 B.C. The premise of this revised chronology insists that not only were the planets formed after the creation of earth, but during the last 6000 years of history. This premise suggests that the mythologies of the past are not mere stories of fancy but eyewitness accounts of what took place. It is also the premise here that with the creation of the planets, catastrophic events took place on earth as further witness to the massive influences against the earth as it came near to the cosmic events.

Illustration 12: Revised view of the expansion of the universe:

image007.tif

13. Solaria Binaria Theory: The theory of Alfred De Grazia and Earl Milton is based on a two-star system during the early moments of the Solar System. In 1984, these two disciples of Immanuel Velikovsky and both, educated scientists, created a hypothesis that the original solar system consisted of only one planet, earth. This planet resided between 2 stars, rather than circling 1 star as our current solar system indicates. In their estimation, the first evidence of this simple 2 star and 1 planet system took place around 12,000 years ago. This is a contradiction to current conventional cosmology, which gives us a date of around 20 billion years. In their research, they found that 61% of the sixty nearest stars are double star systems. Furthermore, nothing that we know about the sun contradicts it being within a double star system in the recent past. The properties, of our sun, give a considerable amount of evidence that it was once part of a 2 star system. De Grazia and Milton believe that the original sun was about 11% larger than our current sun and exploded to create two sub suns, one larger than the other. The smaller was viewed by the ancients as a god (and planet), Uranus. They propose that the current cosmology about the sun’s core is badly in error and caused the theories now in existence to come about. A revision of the theories about the sun would bring about revolutionary changes in the formation of the solar system.

With the consideration of magnetic and electrical processes, the formation of the solar system could easily take place right before the eye of the observer on earth (a testimony to the accuracy of the mythological stories about what they saw taking place). Driven by electrical forces, quanta-evolution becomes essential. The evidence of these processes can be witnessed in our geological magnetic rocks and minerals that point to locations other than the current north and south poles. Recently, this phenomenon was discovered by Shu-lin Li of the