[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Abramelin]

Setting aside the fact that this is not the date we were talking about before (3850 BC), then where did they get the extra 100/101 years since we know the number given between the Creation and the Flood is 1656, per the Masoretic Text?

cormac

I know it's not the date we were talking about, but it's very possible the Frisian almanacs used Scaliger's calculations. I have already searched for his work online but found nothing yet.

And if I find it, I hope I can tell you how he arrived at his dates of the Creation and the Flood. But I am afraid his work will be in Latin.

Anyway, I set out to find the source of the date of 2194 BC, and I think Scaliger is a good candidate.

It doesn't matter how he cooked up his numbers, it matters that we know where the 2194 BC date comes from.

And if you read his criticism about Becanus and others like Becanus, I don't think we will have to be 'afraid' he got it from some 'unknown Frisian manuscript'.

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

I think I found out whose theory the dates in the Frisian almanacs were based on, and it was staring me right in the face all the time.

Year of almanac: 1839

Wereldschepping, naar onze tijdrekening: 5788

(Creation of the world according to our time reckoning: 5788)

1839-5788= -3949 >> 3950 BC

Ussher calculated that the creation occurred in 4004 BC; using the King James Bible, this creation date gives the date of the Flood as 2348 BC. Although the Ussher chronology remains highly influential, other theologians have given different dates for the Creation; for example, Joseph Scaliger claimed it to have occurred in 3950 BC, while Petavius calculated the date as 3982 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

Another important factor was the calendar reform. The Julian year, introduced by Julius Caesar

himself, was well out of step with the real year by this time, and in 1582 Pope Gregory XIII

initiated the new or Gregorian year which corrected the slippage of the calendar. Everyone,

whether for or against, knew about this. Ussher was against the calendar reform, and his

opposition is one reason why England did not adopt the Gregorian year until 1752. To this must

be added the critical work on ancient chronologies done by Scaliger in his De emendatione

temporum (1583), by the Jesuit Petavius (1627), as well as by others. Chronological questions

were a common subject of learned discussion, and men of letters could be expected to know

something about them: Sir Thomas Browner for example, wrote attractively about them in his

Pseudoxia Epidemica.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/AboutScience/chronology_barr.pdf

This seems to conflict with the date given in your post by Wiki, which said Scaliger claimed 3950BC. The article below has him saying it was Jan 1, 4713BC and says the methods he used to calculate this date.

4713-JAN-1 BCE: A French classical scholar, Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), estimated this date in his book De emendatione temporum [on the correction of chronology] He based it on the convergence of the 28 year Solar Cycle, the 19 year Metonic Cycle and the 15 year Roman Indiction cycle -- three ancient methods of measuring time.

http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id15.html

[Abramelin]

This seems to conflict with the date given in your post by Wiki, which said Scaliger claimed 3950BC. The article below has him saying it was Jan 1, 4713BC and says the methods he used to calculate this date.

4713-JAN-1 BCE: A French classical scholar, Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), estimated this date in his book De emendatione temporum [on the correction of chronology] He based it on the convergence of the 28 year Solar Cycle, the 19 year Metonic Cycle and the 15 year Roman Indiction cycle -- three ancient methods of measuring time.

http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id15.html

I guess they misinterpreted something:

The calendar dating of historical events and the determination of how many days have elapsed since some astronomical or other occurrence are difficult for a number of reasons. Leap years have to be inserted, but, not always regularly, months have changed their lengths and new ones have been added from time to time and years have commenced on varying dates and their lengths have been computed in various ways. Since historical dating must take all these factors into account, it occurred to the 16th-century French classicist and literary scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609) that a consecutive numbering system could be of inestimable help. This he thought should be arranged as a cyclic period of great length, and he worked out the system that is known as the Julian period. He published his proposals in Paris in 1583 under the title Opus de emendatione temporum.

The Julian period is a cycle of 7,980 years. It is based on the Metonic cycle of 19 years, a “solar cycle” of 28 years, and the Indiction cycle of 15 years. The so-called solar cycle was a period after which the days of the seven-day week repeated on the same dates. Since one year contains 52 weeks of seven days, plus one day, the days of the week would repeat every seven years were no leap year to intervene. A Julian calendar leap year cycle is four years, therefore the days of the week repeat on the same dates every 4 × 7 = 28 years. The cycle of the Indiction was a fiscal, not astronomical, period. It first appears in tax receipts for Egypt in 303 ce and probably took its origin in a periodic 15-year taxation census that followed Diocletian’s reconquest of Egypt in 297 ce. By multiplying the Metonic, solar, and Indiction cycles together, Scaliger obtained his cycle of 7,980 years (19 × 28 × 15 = 7,980), a period of sufficient length to cover most previous and future historical dates required at any one time.

Scaliger, tracing each of the three cycles back in time, found that all coincided in the year 4713 bce, on the Julian calendar reckoning. On the information available to him, he believed this to be a date considerably before any historical events. He therefore set the beginning of the first Julian period at January 1, 4713 bce. The years of the Julian period are not now used, but the day number is still used in astronomy and in preparing calendar tables, for it is the only record where days are free from combination into weeks and months.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/89368/calendar/59345/Complex-cycles?anchor=ref107320

[cormac mac airt]

Going back and looking at the Statenvertaling that Knul keeps talking about, I had this page translated into English here:

Genesis 5 - in English

Which takes us to the birth of Shem, Ham and Japheth. Adding another 100 years til the Flood gives us 2347 years. 2347 + 2194 = 4541, which has nothing to do with any of the dates we've seen previously.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

I know it's not the date we were talking about, but it's very possible the Frisian almanacs used Scaliger's calculations. I have already searched for his work online but found nothing yet.

And if I find it, I hope I can tell you how he arrived at his dates of the Creation and the Flood. But I am afraid his work will be in Latin.

Anyway, I set out to find the source of the date of 2194 BC, and I think Scaliger is a good candidate.

It doesn't matter how he cooked up his numbers, it matters that we know where the 2194 BC date comes from.

And if you read his criticism about Becanus and others like Becanus, I don't think we will have to be 'afraid' he got it from some 'unknown Frisian manuscript'.

.

And I'm still inclined to believe that any calculations based on Montano's Bible are just as valid a possibility, although ONLY a possibility. But in either case, neither possibility is suggestive of an ancient origin as some would like to believe.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

I guess they misinterpreted something:

The calendar dating of historical events and the determination of how many days have elapsed since some astronomical or other occurrence are difficult for a number of reasons. Leap years have to be inserted, but, not always regularly, months have changed their lengths and new ones have been added from time to time and years have commenced on varying dates and their lengths have been computed in various ways. Since historical dating must take all these factors into account, it occurred to the 16th-century French classicist and literary scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609) that a consecutive numbering system could be of inestimable help. This he thought should be arranged as a cyclic period of great length, and he worked out the system that is known as the Julian period. He published his proposals in Paris in 1583 under the title Opus de emendatione temporum.

The Julian period is a cycle of 7,980 years. It is based on the Metonic cycle of 19 years, a “solar cycle” of 28 years, and the Indiction cycle of 15 years. The so-called solar cycle was a period after which the days of the seven-day week repeated on the same dates. Since one year contains 52 weeks of seven days, plus one day, the days of the week would repeat every seven years were no leap year to intervene. A Julian calendar leap year cycle is four years, therefore the days of the week repeat on the same dates every 4 × 7 = 28 years. The cycle of the Indiction was a fiscal, not astronomical, period. It first appears in tax receipts for Egypt in 303 ce and probably took its origin in a periodic 15-year taxation census that followed Diocletian’s reconquest of Egypt in 297 ce. By multiplying the Metonic, solar, and Indiction cycles together, Scaliger obtained his cycle of 7,980 years (19 × 28 × 15 = 7,980), a period of sufficient length to cover most previous and future historical dates required at any one time.

Scaliger, tracing each of the three cycles back in time, found that all coincided in the year 4713 bce, on the Julian calendar reckoning. On the information available to him, he believed this to be a date considerably before any historical events. He therefore set the beginning of the first Julian period at January 1, 4713 bce. The years of the Julian period are not now used, but the day number is still used in astronomy and in preparing calendar tables, for it is the only record where days are free from combination into weeks and months.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/89368/calendar/59345/Complex-cycles?anchor=ref107320

OK, I found more reference and clarification.

The Julian Period is in the list of the Friesche Almanak. They have the number 6552. 1839AD almanac. 4713BC+6552=1839AD.

7980 years Julian period.

To be more specific Saliger has the exact date of Sunday 25th October 3950BC - you had: 1839AD minus time from creation 5788 = 3950BC I agree, just revising.

So, the Friesche Almanak has the creation date as 3950BC really (that is, 5788 years ago from 1839AD) I see. It would appear then the F.A has used the calculations of Scaliger.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=D0XL3vwPX0kC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=scaliger+3950BC&source=bl&ots=xYhVyZbYA1&sig=l5W7PPMdNIEw23v7ol4_5QIEo_k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9AUHT77qCO6WiQellqiKCQ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=scaliger%203950BC&f=false

4032 year ago - the Flood

1839-4032= 2193BC

So, we know the Frisian Almanac was probably based on the work of Scaliger, plus the Bible of Montano is certainly a possibility the same time has been used.

I said to cormac:

I think possibly yes. I found the link that says Montano dates Creation at 3849BC then minus the 1656 years from Creation = 2193BC. In the fall/autumn.

2 different creation dates but the Flood for both falls in 2193BC.

Not abig diff. between creation dates - Saliger 3950BC, Montano 3849BC. 101 years. The time it took for the Magyar to arrive after the sinking of Atland.

Edited January 6, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

And I'm still inclined to believe that any calculations based on Montano's Bible are just as valid a possibility, although ONLY a possibility. But in either case, neither possibility is suggestive of an ancient origin as some would like to believe.

cormac

This why I prefer Scaliger as a possible source: he lived and died in Leiden, Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Justus_Scaliger

And more:

Justus Scaliger had praised Ubbo Emmius for his book about Friesland with words like, "your divine Frisian history book". According to the book in this LINK, Emmius may have gotten an ancient Frisian manuscript from Scaliger who in his turn had gotten in from one of his students from the Ommelanden, Groningen.

It's not too farfetched to assume that the Frisian almanacs adopted his calculations just to honour and respect him.

+++++

EDIT:

To prevent anyone getting excited about that ancient Frisian manuscript that Emmius received from Scaliger, it's the "Tweede Hunsingoër Handschrift" = Second Hunsingo Manuscript.

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

This why I prefer Scaliger as a possible source: he lived and died in Leiden, Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Justus_Scaliger

And more:

Justus Scaliger had praised Ubbo Emmius for his book about Friesland with words like, "your divine Frisian history book". According to the book in this LINK, Emmius may have gotten an ancient Frisian manuscript from Scaliger who in his turn had gotten in from one of his students from the Ommelanden, Groningen.

It's not too farfetched to assume that the Frisian almanacs adopted his calculations just to honour and respect him.

.

He's a native and I can appreciate that, but I think we can both agree that the 2193 BC date is based on calculations from the Masoretic Text and NOT from any specific event from that date itself.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Almost 2.5 million Julian days have elapsed since the initial epoch. JDN 2,400,000 was November 16, 1858. JD 2,500,000.0 will occur on August 31, 2132 at noon UT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day

The manuscript first came to public awareness in the 1860s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oera_Linda_Book

Maybe the JDN 2,400,000 was meaningful to the writers of the OLB if it is a hoax.

[Abramelin]

He's a native and I can appreciate that, but I think we can both agree that the 2193 BC date is based on calculations from the Masoretic Text and NOT from any specific event from that date itself.

cormac

Yes, I agree.

Still, the description of the effects the return of Halley's comet was supposed to have on our planet keeps bugging me.

Well, I think it's too much of a coincidence, and a Scaliger might have read about it, maybe even have written about it.

+++

EDIT:

Ok, forget about that last one, lol:

Edmund Halley FRS : 8 November 1656 – 14 January 1742

Joseph Justus Scaliger : August 5, 1540, Agen – January 21, 1609, Leiden.

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

Yes, I agree.

Still, the description of the effects the return of Halley's comet was supposed to have on our planet keeps bugging me.

Well, I think it's too much of a coincidence, and a Scaliger might have read about it, maybe even have written about it.

+++

EDIT:

Ok, forget about that last one, lol:

Edmund Halley FRS : 8 November 1656 – 14 January 1742

Joseph Justus Scaliger : August 5, 1540, Agen – January 21, 1609, Leiden.

.

Yeah, but peoples of the past were always coming up with 'portents of gloom and doom', none of which have anything to do with what we now know about impactors or even close fly-bys of comets. And contrary to the original ideas in this thread, neither a single impactor nor a significant axial tilt are in evidence for the specific time in question.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Joseph Scaliger's father was pretty distingued....

Julius Caesar Scaliger (or Giulio Cesare della Scala) (April 23, 1484 – October 21, 1558) was an Italian scholar and physician who spent a major part of his career in France. He employed the techniques and discoveries of Renaissance humanism to defend Aristotelianism against the new learning. In spite of his arrogant and contentious disposition, his contemporary reputation was high, judging him so distinguished by his learning and talents that, according to Jacques August de Thou, none of the ancients could be placed above him, and the age in which he lived could not show his equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_Scaliger

That's pretty high praise.

Joseph was no slouch either...

During the first seven years of his residence at Leiden his reputation was at its highest point. His literary judgement was unquestioned. From his throne at Leiden he ruled the learned world; a word from him could make or mar a rising reputation, and he was surrounded by young men eager to listen to and profit from his conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Justus_Scaliger

Unusual he has Justus in his name too, like Halbertsma, probably common but a funny co-incidence.

Important people I had never heard of before, the more I read, the more he seems to be behind the dates in the Frisian almanac imo.

[Abramelin]

Yeah, but peoples of the past were always coming up with 'portents of gloom and doom', none of which have anything to do with what we now know about impactors or even close fly-bys of comets. And contrary to the original ideas in this thread, neither a single impactor nor a significant axial tilt are in evidence for the specific time in question.

cormac

I again agree, but my goal is to show where the writers of the OLB may have gotten their inspiration from, not whether it all actually happened.

==

OK, so Scaliger died before Halley was even born, but read this:

Diacu then switches back to Joseph Scaliger and focuses on his attempts at writing a historical chronology. Scaliger is important because he used astronomy to establish a number of important dates such as the first Olympiad, as well as the Almagest, Ptolemy's famous astronomy treatise from the second century AD. This system was later amended by Petavius and became the basis of the chronology of time that is commonly accepted today.

http://nabataea.net/millennium.html

Oh brother:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=xO3n6sjUaK4C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=Joseph+Justus+Scaliger+comets&source=bl&ots=EXOKckDnA-&sig=aP1EMBN-_LRTQmkQ3PCHKXZ2n90&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=ZhIHT8DWAoiSOvmnjJwB&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Justus%20Scaliger%20comets&f=false

[Abramelin]

Joseph Scaliger's father was pretty distingued....

Julius Caesar Scaliger (or Giulio Cesare della Scala) (April 23, 1484 – October 21, 1558) was an Italian scholar and physician who spent a major part of his career in France. He employed the techniques and discoveries of Renaissance humanism to defend Aristotelianism against the new learning. In spite of his arrogant and contentious disposition, his contemporary reputation was high, judging him so distinguished by his learning and talents that, according to Jacques August de Thou, none of the ancients could be placed above him, and the age in which he lived could not show his equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_Scaliger

That's pretty high praise.

Joseph was no slouch either...

During the first seven years of his residence at Leiden his reputation was at its highest point. His literary judgement was unquestioned. From his throne at Leiden he ruled the learned world; a word from him could make or mar a rising reputation, and he was surrounded by young men eager to listen to and profit from his conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Justus_Scaliger

Unusual he has Justus in his name too, like Halbertsma, probably common but a funny co-incidence.

Important people I had never heard of before, the more I read, the more he seems to be behind the dates in the Frisian almanac imo.

The guy was a genius, that much I understood from reading a ton about him today:

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/philology/gallery/scaliger.html

You talk about coincidence, but what about Halbertsma being named after this guy?

Joost (Justus) Hiddes Halbertsma (Frisian: Joast Hiddes Halbertsma)

Josephus Justus Scaliger.

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

He's a native and I can appreciate that, but I think we can both agree that the 2193 BC date is based on calculations from the Masoretic Text and NOT from any specific event from that date itself.

cormac

How is the date of 2193BC based on calculations from the Masoretic Texts? Can you just enlighten me on that one please?

[The Puzzler]

The guy was a genius, that much I understood from reading a ton about him today:

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/philology/gallery/scaliger.html

You talk about coincidence, but what about Halbertsma being named after this guy?

Yes, I believe this could be a possibilty for sure. The name was in Halbertsma's family wasn't it, his ancestors probably admired the guy.

[cormac mac airt]

I again agree, but my goal is to show where the writers of the OLB may have gotten their inspiration from, not whether it all actually happened.

==

OK, so Scaliger died before Halley was even born, but read this:

Diacu then switches back to Joseph Scaliger and focuses on his attempts at writing a historical chronology. Scaliger is important because he used astronomy to establish a number of important dates such as the first Olympiad, as well as the Almagest, Ptolemy's famous astronomy treatise from the second century AD. This system was later amended by Petavius and became the basis of the chronology of time that is commonly accepted today.

http://nabataea.net/millennium.html

Oh brother:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=xO3n6sjUaK4C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=Joseph+Justus+Scaliger+comets&source=bl&ots=EXOKckDnA-&sig=aP1EMBN-_LRTQmkQ3PCHKXZ2n90&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=ZhIHT8DWAoiSOvmnjJwB&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Justus%20Scaliger%20comets&f=false

Oh I'm not complaining, I'm just looking at the overall picture and more and more the OLB appears to be a product of more modern times. Certainly not something from 4000+ years ago.

cormac

[Abramelin]

Yes, I believe this could be a possibilty for sure. The name was in Halbertsma's family wasn't it, his ancestors probably admired the guy.

Admired, I am sure of that by now.

And it looks as though Halbertsma and Scaliger could have been very close friends and collegues if they had not lived ages apart.

But anyway, I think we all safely and soundly nailed that 'notorious' date of 2194 BC.

[The Puzzler]

I again agree, but my goal is to show where the writers of the OLB may have gotten their inspiration from, not whether it all actually happened.

==

OK, so Scaliger died before Halley was even born, but read this:

Diacu then switches back to Joseph Scaliger and focuses on his attempts at writing a historical chronology. Scaliger is important because he used astronomy to establish a number of important dates such as the first Olympiad, as well as the Almagest, Ptolemy's famous astronomy treatise from the second century AD. This system was later amended by Petavius and became the basis of the chronology of time that is commonly accepted today.

http://nabataea.net/millennium.html

Oh brother:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=xO3n6sjUaK4C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=Joseph+Justus+Scaliger+comets&source=bl&ots=EXOKckDnA-&sig=aP1EMBN-_LRTQmkQ3PCHKXZ2n90&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=ZhIHT8DWAoiSOvmnjJwB&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Justus%20Scaliger%20comets&f=false

lol

This thread will never end, it's just a bottomless pit, I bet we will still be here in another 5 years...maybe even 10. Maybe we can get into the Guinness Book of Records for the longest continuous forum thread ever.

This guy probably wrote the OLB himself the way this is heading...

[Abramelin]

lol

This thread will never end, it's just a bottomless pit, I bet we will still be here in another 5 years...maybe even 10. Maybe we can get into the Guinness Book of Records for the longest continuous forum thread ever.

This guy probably wrote the OLB himself the way this is heading...

But did you get how Scaliger used astronomy to calculate important dates in the ancient past??

And he must surely have known a lot about comets if you read that screenshot.

[The Puzzler]

Admired, I am sure of that by now.

And it looks as though Halbertsma and Scaliger could have been very close friends and collegues if they had not lived ages apart.

But anyway, I think we all safely and soundly nailed that 'notorious' date of 2194 BC.

Scaliger might have known Jysbert Japiex.

Seems likely imo that the OLB has used dates from the Frisian almanac based on the work of Scaliger, the dates do not match in that list if it was Montori's dates even though the outcome is the same. Montori's dates don't line up with the F.A timeframes.

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

Response to your next post:

Yes, I did get that part, that was most important, his work on the Julian dates showed me that.

I will be looking at the date he gives of 25th October 2850BC asap on Cybersky. Yes, on the comets too.

Edited January 6, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

Scaliger might have known Jysbert Japiex.

Seems likely imo that the OLB has used dates from the Frisian almanac based on the work of Scaliger, the dates do not match in that list if it was Montori's dates even though the outcome is the same. Montori's dates don't line up with the F.A timeframes.

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

Response to your next post:

Yes, I did get that part, that was most important, his work on the Julian dates showed me that.

I will be looking at the date he gives of 25th October 2850BC asap on Cybersky. Yes, on the comets too.

Joseph Justus Scaliger (August 5, 1540, Agen – January 21, 1609, Leiden)

Gysbert Japicx (Bolsward, Friesland 1603–1666)

[cormac mac airt]

How is the date of 2193BC based on calculations from the Masoretic Texts? Can you just enlighten me on that one please?

Whether someone used Montano's Bible, the Geneva Bible or the King James Bible ALL were based on the Masoretic Text and therefore using a 1656 year period between Creation and the Flood. Montano's calculation even nailed it exactly. I believe the 100 year difference of Scaliger might be explained by the fact that Noah is shown as 500 when he has Shem, Ham and Japheth and 600 years (the 100 year difference) when the Flood occurs. Nothing approaching this accurate can be found using dates from either the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch.

cormac

Edited January 6, 2012 by cormac mac airt

[The Puzzler]

Joseph Justus Scaliger (August 5, 1540, Agen – January 21, 1609, Leiden)

Gysbert Japicx (Bolsward, Friesland 1603–1666)

OK, cool, I was being lazy and just saw the 1655 date on the pdf shot you gave of a year Scaliger had commentary of Astronomica. Must have not been alive to do that one...just added in from some prior one.

Here's the book: http://www.theoi.com/Text/HyginusAstronomica2.html

This part is illuminating for me.

II.42 PLANETS

It remains for us to speak of the five stars which many have called “wandering,” and which the Greeks called planets. One of them is the star of Jove, Phaenon by name, a youth whom Prometheus made excelling all others in beauty, when he was making man, as Heraclides Ponticus says. When he intended to keep him back, without presenting him to Jove as he did the others, Cupid reported this to Jove, whereupon Mercury was sent to Phaenon and persuaded him to come to Jove and become immortal. Therefore he is placed among the stars.

The second star is that of Sol; others say of Saturn. Eratosthenes claims that it is called Phaethon, from the son of Sol. Many have written about him – how he foolishly drove his father’s chariot and set fire to the earth. Because of this he was struck with a thunderbolt by Jove, and fell into the river Eridanus, and was conveyed by Sol to the constellations.

The third star is that of Mars, though others say it belongs to Hercules. The star of Mars follows that of Venus, as Eratosthenes says, for the following reason: When Vulcan had married Venus, and on account of his careful watch, Mars had no opportunity to see her, Mars obtained nothing from Venus except that his star should follow hers. Since she inflamed him violently with love, she called the star Pyroeis, indicating this fact.

The fourth start is that of Venus, Lucifer by name. Some say it is Juno’s. In many tales it is recorded that it is Hesperus, too. It seems to be the largest of all stars. Some have said it represents the son of Aurora and Cephalus, who surpassed many in beauty, so that he even vied with Venus, and, as Eratosthenes says, for this reason it is called the star of Venus. It is visible both at dawn and sunset, and so properly has been called both Lucifer and Hesperus.

The fifth star is Mercury’s, named Stilbon. It is small and bright. It is attributed to Mercury because he first established the months and perceived the courses of the constellations. Euhemerus says that Venus first established the constellations and taught Mercury.

[The Puzzler]

Whether someone used Montano's Bible, the Geneva Bible or the King James Bible ALL were based on the Masoretic Text and therefore using a 1656 year period between Creation and the Flood. Montano's calculation even nailed it exactly. I believe the 100 year difference of Scaliger might be explained by the fact that Noah is shown as 500 when he has Shem, Ham and Japheth and 600 years (the 100 year difference) when the Flood occurs. Nothing approaching this accurate can be found using dates from either the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch.

cormac

Yes but the Frisian Almanac list does not have 1656 year period between Creation and the Flood.

It has Creation at 5788 years ago and the Flood at 4032 years ago.

It's a 1756 year period not 1656 as far as I can see.

Late here, back tomorrow.