Talk:Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa

message: I have moved the following anonymously contributed unsourced assertions here. Can anyone make sense of this or provide some source? (Wetman 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Venus tablets are a major date in all chronologies both biblical and pagan. First, you must postulate the concept that all chronologies once started from a doctrine of one Creation date of the world, not a different date per nation and culture. Then you must postulate that they feared the year 6000 or around it for an astral disaster. Our ancient past is so filled with these myths that we should not be opposed to start here. Whereas short Genesis chronologies place the tablet at Year 2400 plus 3600 more to the Year 6000, all long Genesis chronologies, and all pagan chronologies (presumed to have no biblical connection) use this tablet date as the year 3600 from Creation. This becomes lost and unnoticed because each nation has recalculated The Flood that created the new current world. The many Creation dates are all that of the Flood. Example: Mayan Flood is 3114 BC creating the world. But because they now predict that the current world will last 13 baktun (5200 tun), they presume all previous worlds to be of same length. And so that Flood becomes labeled as 13 baktun. The original prediction of 3744 haab (3796 tun) reveals its ancient connection to the Flood being (not 13 baktun) but 2256 years. However, the seasonal drift of the 365-day calendar stays in tact with the Venus tablet date May 1626 BC. As the Sothic is 720+720+20=1460 (leap days 180+180+5=365 days)so that many chronologies use 1440 as 360 leap days, so too the seasonal 744+744+20=1508 has 1488 years as 3114-1626 BC when Ammisaduqa died. The chronologies that place creation at 5500 BC whether the biblical Adam or pagan Creation do so by equating 1900 BC as the Year 3600 and as that tablet, and Venus date. The chronologies that place Creation at 5200 BC do so by regarding 1600 BC as 3600, the end of 300-year Babylon (1900-600 BC correctly 1894-1594 BC). (NOTE: Venus Dec 1625 BC minus 24 is Dec 1601 BC.) The Maya place it at Hamurabi's 1770 BC as Noah's year 1344 from that 3114 BC Creation by flood as being 2256 years to the Creation. In short Genesis comparison of the same data (2256 and 1344 and 3600), the Flood is Man's year 1656 so that the year 2256 is Venus in Noah's year 1200, and then only 144 years later the Venus Tablet of Noah's year 1344 is Man's year 2400. Babylon's 3600 is then a countdown calendar to year 6000. The rise of Venus as an 8-year cycle to July 1770 BC, Venus then drifts back to being a rise in May 1626 BC, (next rise 584 days later in Dec 1625 BC). This is Man's year 2400+3600 of which becomes reversed as Man's year 3600+2400. Venus as 1200 Egyptian years minus 60 days is equal to 1199 Julian and 5 days. The discovery was formulated as a half cycle being 600 egyptian years minus 30 days (subtract 2 days for every 40-year Venus). The 40-year cycle Moses used began in 1594 BC when Babylon ended (1894-1594 BC), but the world concluded the end of Babylon and end of Amizaduga to be the same year (correctly 1626 BC but mistaken as 1600 BC). Early Greeks and later christian Eusebius conclude the 300-year span of Babylon to be 1900-1600 BC as year 3600 because of the fall of 3rd dynasty Ur in 1900 BC. From this springs the debate of Man as 5500 BC or 5200 BC. And this in turn effected the myth of the Great Pyramid being a tower to survive the world's end disaster. The debate whether it was completed the year before the Flood, or started the year after the Flood (survived it or not) was altered to claim it was built 300 years before the Flood.
Anonymous IP User_talk:69.76.46.169 is convinced that his calendrical theories provide the Key to All Mythologies, but the amount of effort he's spent working them out does not translate into corresponding clarity of explanation... AnonMoos 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Venus tablets"

message: The article was based on some old reference materials. The fact that there are multiple copies of this tablet was completely ignored (more could be added about this). The intro was way too long. Also, I've added some more recent literature. --Dyuku (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganised the intro, some corrections 

message: I'm moving the following text here from the article: it's unsourced and appears to be WP:OR. It is the only contribution by User:Jack "curiosity" smith and was added 16:49, 17 January 2010.
month   	days in month
arahsem 	30
kislimu 	30
tebetu  	30
shabatu 	30
adar    	
nisan   	30
ayar    	30
simanu  	30
dumzi   	30
abu     	30
ululu   	30
tashritu	
	
	
The above table, assuming it to be an accurate translation, can be shown to equal 30 days in the 12 month year on ten months of the year.	
It is reasonable to assume that the two months adar and tashritu are also 30 day months which would seem to indicate that	
the twenty-one year record occurred during a period when the year consisted of 360 days of twelve months of thirty days.	
Comparison between these records and present day movements of Venus (365.25 day year) would not seem possible.
jack "curiosity" smith
–Syncategoremata (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unsourced contribution moved from the article 

message: I am confused.
Carl Sagan said that Babylonian astronomers recorded that Venus existed many years before Velikovsky said it existed. Peter Huber seems to confirm this:-
http://www.velikovsky.info/Peter_Huber
Soo...are there any rebuttals to Huber's observations, and do they hold any weight?
I checked on Google and found this:-
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/venus/zenith.htm
But it doesn't refute the allegation by Huber that Venus was observed long before Velikovsky said it existed. 
In this piece by James P. Hogan, we have a quote by Velikovsky claiming that Jupiter was ejected thousands of years before the collision:-
"That Venus was observed before it came into conflict with Earth is clear from what I wrote. It did not come from Jupiter just on the eve of that collision. It came thousands of years before. It could be seen."
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=37&cmd=sample&sample=79
Some guy called Rose claimed that Huber made a lot of amendments and factual errors in his assumptions. I am unable to obtain Rose's work on the internet. Thus, I am unable to verify if Roses' critique is even valid.
Why does this article on thunderbolts.info say that Venus was ejected (in the final sentence)? How can we confirm this if there is no clear way to resolve dates in which the planet was observed?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070115titanatmosphere.htm
Hence...my confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.65.149 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, Velikovsky's proposals, and any proposals based on his, is all junk. He was a doctor/psychiatrist who had little to no real understanding of how gravity, electricity, magnetism, or any basic physics work. He grew up in an age when people still viewed electricity and magnetism as something magical (which, even if he didn't quite see it as literally being "magical", his lack of knowledge about how these actually worked certainly allowed that misconception to influence what concept he did have — what he wrote about this and gravity seems to indicate this). Simply put, what he proposes is physically impossible under any conditions. (Velikovsky was a guy who thought it was possible to make a person levitate using a 12 volt battery and a bunch of wire)! The best advice is to reject and ignore anything that came from the man, you will be far better off. — al-Shimoni (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velikovsy controversy 

message: Whatever this example means: "inferior   Venus	sets on	Shabatu 15	and after 3 days	rises on	Shabatu 18"?
I, who have a poor understanding of English, realize that Venus would have been below the horizon for about three days. However, according to the Stellarium program, this was not the case.
Raksutus 08th March 2021 time 11:13 FIN  — Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from Venustablet 

message: We (modern man) regularly assume we have a better understanding of heavenly bodies than every generation before us. Why is the position of Venus as witnessed and recorded by these ancient peoples assumed to be incorrect when there is a modern theory that supports their accounts? Why is Velikovsky laughed out of a room without even a fair consideration of his work? 72.201.187.122 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an anecdote for you. many moons ago a publisher bringing out Velikovsky's work was going to label it science. the real science writers who used that publisher said they were going to rip up their contracts if it happened. the publisher backed down.
100.15.117.34 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision 

message: https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:article:S0003598X18001655/resource/name/S0003598X18001655sup001.pdf
100.15.117.34 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thera