Alexander's death was miscalculated in 144 AD (Egyptian 475y)

[Elijah]

Any of these three dates in 332 BC could be Alexander's death.
Lunar 2nd month is Greek Daisios and Babylonian (Aiyar, Iyyar, Ziv).
But civil 2nd month may not be Egyptian Parmuti, but rather (Persian Zoroastrian Amerdad):
Jun 10 = Pamenot 29 (Tir 24) = lunar Daisios 29* (Aiyar 29*)
Jun 15 = egyptian civil Parmuti   4* (Tir 29)
Jun 20 = Parmuti 9  (civil Amerdad 4*)

Jun 10 = Pamenot 29 (Tir 24) = lunar Daisios 29* (Aiyar 29*)
Jun 15 = egyptian civil Parmuti   4* (Tir 29)
Jun 20 = Parmuti 9  (civil Amerdad 4*)

BECAUSE 475 years later in 144 AD
Feb 17 = Parmuti 4* (Tir  29 )
Feb 22 = Parmuti 9  (Amerdad 4*) = Pertios 29* (Tebet 29*)
plus 4 months
Jun 16  = Mesor 4*  (Aban  29 )   = Daisios 29* (Aiyar 29*)
Jun 21  = Mesor 9    (Adur 4*)
warning caution Aban 29 is civil not lunar,
and the fact that Egyptian 4th day of civil month
equals Persian 29th day of previous civil month
merely increases the odds of secular confusion with
29th day of the lunar month.

PART 1: EGYPTIAN CORRELATION MADE OF THE DATE
     The date of Alexander's death in 332 BC was miscalculated in 144 AD using both the 475 egyptian year cycle and the 475-year Julian Metonic cycle. And Jack Finegan also miscalculates it, discussing Parmuti 4 as Jun 13 in 332 BC when it is correctly Jun 15.
     Imagine if your mother died on Memorial Day. Did she die on May 31, or did she die on the last Monday of May. Few years have May 31 on a Monday. When Columbus saw America on Julian Oct 12 in 1492 that date later became Gregorian Oct 22 in 1582. So now are we sure we know our Gregorian Oct 12 will help us remember the actual calculated date for 1492. On the television series LOST IN SPACE, they once argued 1492 sailed the ocean blue or 1493 sailed the deep blue sea. Before 1582 AD, the first full moon after Julian March 21 was Passover. But that date turned out to be a seasonal Gregorian March 31 and so the Passover moon had truly never been allowed to be before March 31, so by not allowing Nisan 1 new moon to fall before Julian March 8 (13 days before Julian March 21), they were not allowing it to fall before Gregorian March 18. And the same with Orthodox who believed the new moon must also fall after Julian March 21 (Greg. Mar 31) ten days later than the actual spring equinox. So dates drift, and calculations get matched up with other dates.
     Jack Finegan, Handbook Bible Chronology, Paragraph 132. Discusses the date of Alexander The Greek’s death in 332 BC at the end of the lunar month:

332 BC absent moon Jun 10 at 19:04 UT

The record states that:

(Egyptian civil)   Parmuti 4
(Greek lunar)   Daisios 29
(Babylonian lunar)   2nd month 29th day (Aiyar 29, Iyyar, Ziv)

With 332 BC Jun 10 absent moon at 19:04 UT as Daisios 29 he says incorrectly:
Jun 13 = Parmuti 4 (= lunar Daisios  29) death
Jun 14 = Parmuti 5 (= lunar Panemos 1)

     He incorrectly says Parmuti 4 is Jun 13 and asks can it be the last day of the month Daisios, as much as 3 days after absent new moon? Being cloudy extends a month into 31 and 32 and 33. Was the previous month cloudy making the 1st late, and now was it cloudy again Jun 11 thru 13 to see no new crescent? In reality he miscalculated because Parmuti 4 is Jun 15 in 332 BC (not Jun 13). This makes it worse for a Daisios 29. This is extremely critical if the 1st of a lunar month would be Parmuti 4 as five days after new conjunction. Jack Finegan then says a recent study from Babylon gives the lunar date 2nd month 29th day which is Aiaru 29 (Daisios 29). And so, because that makes two records stating Daisos 29 and Aiaru 29, we then accept the fact the absent new moon for 332 BC is June 10. So he just discards Parmuti 4 as Jun 13, not even knowing it is Jun 15. Because the truth is that Parmuti 4 in 332 BC is Jun 15; this means the choices are Jun 10 or Jun 15 (not Jun 10 or Jun 13). This doesn’t mean the Parmuti 4 is incorrect. One date could be  the recorded, and the other as a later calculated date. But which one:

Jun 10 = (Pamenot 29)   = lunar Daisios 29*   death (?)
Jun 10 absent moon at 19:04 UT
Jun 11 = Pamenot  30   = lunar Panemos 1
Jun 15 = Parmuti   4*   = (lunar Panemos 5)   death (?)
 
332 BC
Jun 10 =Pamenot 29  (Tir 24) = Daisios 29 (Aiaru 29)* death
Jun 10 absent moon at 19:04 UT
Jun 11 =Pamenot  30  (Tir 25) = Panemos 1 (Sivan 1)
Jun 15 =Parmuti   4*  (Tir 29) = Panemos 5 (Sivan 2)   death

Or do they? Here are the facts. Nothing is said to explain why Parmuti 4, where did it come from. If we can make the error of accepting that Parmuti 4, how did the historian make that error?  What goes!  is it that the historian lived centuries later when the 25-year moon cycle fell on Parmuti 4, or when the 19-year cycle fell on Jun 10 & 15. I would like to point out that in 332 BC that the Zoroastrian calendar shifted in 388 BC from Eyptian names to the known Zoroastrian names. Parmuti became Amerdad. However, Amerdad 4 is Egyptian Parmuti 9 (five days after Parmuti 4). This must be taken into consideration because Alexander died in Babylon where they would have dated his death and then brought that date with his body back to Greece. Examples of other calendars:

Armenian Parmuti 4 = Egypt Parmuti 7;
Yezdezred = Egyptian

     Thus it would seem that this Parmuti 4 was calculated in the future by cycles that drift from reality. The ancients calculated with a 475-year cycle.

475 egyptian years = 19x 25 egyptian years (= 19x 309m)

     The dates of concern recorded in 332 BC are in bold type print on the left in 332 BC; they calculate to the dates in 144 AD on the right if an astronomer of 332 BC claimed the 25-year lunar calendar and 19-year lunar calendar to be exact and precise. The civil dates are suppose to be the same lunar date, and they are not; and the lunar dates are suppose to be the same civil date and they are not:

absent moon 332 BC Jun 10 at 19:04 UT
332 BC Pamenot 29 (Jun 10)   ?   to 144 AD Pamenot 29 (Feb 12)
expected as lunar
332 BC Daisios 29 (Jun 10)   ?   to 144 AD Peritios 29 (Feb 12),
332 BC Aiaru 29 (Jun 10)   ?   to 144 AD Tebet 29 (Feb 12).
332 BC civil Parmuti 4 (Jun 15)   ??   to 144 AD Parmuti 4 (Feb 17),
and then for Zoroastrian Persian Parmuti 4 it is also then
332 BC civil Amerdad 4 (Jun 20) ??   to 144 AD Amerdad 4 (Feb 22).
expected as lunar
332 BC Daisios 29 (Jun 20)   ?   to 144 AD Peritios 29 (Feb 22),
332 BC Aiaru 29 (Jun 20)   ?   to 144 AD Tebet 29 (Feb 22).
to absent moon 144 AD Feb 21 at 10:07 UT

Then as a historian in 144 AD, calculate back the same 475-year formula of lunar calendars from either civil dates that were recorded in 332 BC such as Parmuti 4 or Amerdad 4 (the Persian Parmuti), and they are suppose to have the same lunar date on those civil dates; they do not. Take the lunar date Daisios 29 (Aiyar 29) in 144 AD and calculate back with this formula to the same civil date and it is not Daisios 29 back in 332 BC.
     NOTE that the absent moon for 144 AD on Feb 21 occurs 9 days later instead of the expected Feb 12; thus in 144 AD on Feb 21 the reverse is also true counting backward. This absent moon of Feb 21 in 144 AD is miscalculated as Jun 19 for 332 BC (the day before Zororastrian Amerdad 4 which then gets mistranslated as Parmuti 4).
     So this absent moon in 144 AD Feb 21-22 falls on the Persian date of Amerdad 4 at Babylon where Alexander died. Upon being brought home to Greece the date Amerdad 4 would have been presumed as Parmuti 4 instead of Parmuti 9. Then in 144 AD Amerdad 4 does fall on Diasios 29.
     Counting backward by a historian of 144 AD will expect the absent moon to be 9 days later than the real (Pamenot 29) Jun 10 of 332 BC, and so as Jun 19 (Parmuti 8 /Amerdad 3) of 332 BC by this method which then makes Jun 20 /Parmuti 9 /Amerdad 4. Then if they assume Amerdad 4 is Parmuti 4 or label it as such, we then calculate Parmuti 4 as Jun 15 (for a Jun 10 absent moon, and an intended Jun 20 Amerdad 4)

[Elijah]

THIS CALCULATION AND DISCOVERY MADE THIS MOMENT WHILE BRAIN STORMING (ok, just me and God... but motivated by Mose here in our forum, so count that as two brains because he'll catch my mistakes for me to correct, and thanx to Rick J for the ability to modify) this date Thursday Feb 5 of 2009 at 2:10 pm.

Where does the 475-year correlation apply?
The lunar span existed in Egyptian 365-day dates before Julian.
However they could be recognized as Sothic locations in the Julian sky without a Julian date. Thus the Egyptian new year of 2030 BC began these dates with Epagum 1 new moon July 12 and
sothic new year Pamenot 1 July 17.
Jannes noted January 6 from 2029-1554 BC.
Both the winter solstice sun and new moon are a solar eclipse on Jan 6,
but in 1554 BC both occur again as winter solstice sun and new moon solar eclipse on January 4. The issue was made by Moses that these dates of Koiak 21 (Jan 4), Koiak 23 (Jan 6), and 24 and 25 (Jan 7 & 8 ) were not January in 2029 BC but was the suicide silence of the christmas morning of (May 6) Koiak 25 as Saturn crossed Regulus to be the reborn Saturnalia, and the sothic star sets for 72-70 days at Ur and at Memphis respectively. (Ur is equal to Alexandria's 31 dergree latitude 69 miles north, not Memphis; and Jerusalem / Ur-Salem is another 69 miles north with a 74 day absence at 32 degrees.)

The question arises, did Babylon note the lunar dates (2030-1894 BC of 136 years to note the 475 years from the Flood (2369-1894 BC), or did it merely note the sothic return in 475 Julian years, and not in 365-day calendar dates. One thing is for certain, that when culture then insisted the 365-day calendar existed back to 2770 BC July 1 Toth 1, then Babylon also claimed Moses had no Egyptian dates of value (2029-1554 BC) because Babylon would then claim their 2369-1894 BC had Egyptian dates and were merely all lost. For a certainty, they had dates in the other direction (1894-1419 BC) and there a remarkable coincidence occurs that can confuse Marduk the planet Mars with Marduk the moon. Twice 475 years is 950 years. And it is in 949 years that Mars has a cycle which is confused with the sighting of Mars when Noah died almost 950 in 2021 BC.

438x 780 day Mars =949x 360 days =
936x 365 days = (2368 BC Oct 1 to 1432 BC Feb 9)
in 360 day calendar Marduk new year 602
to Marduk new year 1538

+(13x 360) = (6x 780)
= 962x 360 = 444x 780
(2368 BC Oct 1 to 1420 BC Dec 3  as new year Mars)
in 360 day calendar Marduk new year 602
to Marduk new year 1551

about 949 egyptian years (936+13)
(2368 BC Oct 4 Pamenot 1 to 1419 BC Feb 9 Pamenot 1)
3rd day of Marduk new year 602 to
68 days of Marduk new year 1551

950 egyptian years = 2x 475 years = 38x 25 years
= 38x 309m
(2369 BC Oct 6 new moon to 1419 BC Feb 11 Pamenot 3)
exact new moons Oct 6 and Feb 10 as Marduks
with different starting epoch points
the 950 years of new moons ends 2 days after
or the 3rd day after an Egyptian Marduk of Mars
being the moon is 71 days after Marduk new year 1551
and Mars is 68 days after Marduk new year 1551

These cross overs is why Marduk can be Mars or Jupiter or the moon but you cannot take a Marduk date for Mars and say it is Jupiter, and you cant take a Marduk date for the moon and say it is Mars. Yet they did and with math magic came up with everything that is false history. Beleive the lies and you get further from life and closer to death because you don't solve the problems.

Only in this way is it important what date Alexander died. What is important is how man and schools mix things upto destroy what is true.

[Moses]

So just like with Jonah and Nineveh we do have a chance if we get Jehovah's mercy by our actions in Yeshuah name we can pray and ask our Heaven father for deliverance.

 

[Elijah]

Original post corrected due to error of Jack Finegan
leading me into additinal errors on my part; it was in serious ERROR.
I trusted Jack Finegan, paragraph 132 to be correct that
332 BC Jun 13 = Parmuti 4
and he revises THIS Jun 13 to being the absent new moon
of Jun 10 as Daisios 29 (Aiyaru 29)

BUT he is in total error because Parmuti 4 is
two days after Julian Jun 13 and
three days before a Gregorian Jun 13.
As charted here below, the new moon is Julian Jun 10;
and Parmuti 4 is Gregorian Jun 10.
332 BC Jun 10* =Pamenot 29  (Greg.Jun  5) new moon
332 BC Jun 15   =Parmuti   4*  (Greg.Jun 10)
so that lunar Daisios 29 and civil Pamenot 29
are on the same date
(and equal Zoroastrian Pamenot 29 / Tir 24)

[Elijah]

Any of these three dates in 332 BC could be Alexander's death.
Lunar 2nd month is Greek Daisios and Babylonian (Aiyar, Iyyar, Ziv).
But civil 2nd month may not be Egyptian Parmuti, but rather (Persian Zoroastrian Amerdad):
Jun 10 = Pamenot 29 (Tir 24) = lunar Daisios 29* (Aiyar 29*)
Jun 15 = egyptian civil Parmuti   4* (Tir 29)
Jun 20 = Parmuti 9  (civil Amerdad 4*)

BECAUSE 475 years later in 144 AD
Feb 17 = Parmuti 4* (Tir  29 )
Feb 22 = Parmuti 9  (Amerdad 4*) = Pertios 29* (Tebet 29*)
plus 4 months
Jun 16  = Mesor 4*  (Aban  29 )   = Daisios 29* (Aiyar 29*)
Jun 21  = Mesor 9    (Adur 4*)
warning caution Aban 29 is civil not lunar,
and the fact that Egyptian 4th day of civil month
equals Persian 29th day of previous civil month
merely increases the odds of secular confusion with
29th day of the lunar month.

PART 2: WAS A JULIAN CORRELATION MADE OF THE DATE
     But 475-year cycle was also the 19-year Metonic cycle. Calculating 19 Julian years is not easy to deside 4 leap days or 5 leap days, so this was calculated by 76 years which has 19 leap days, the 19x 4 years to add these 19 leap days is exactly equal to 4x 19 Julian years.

475 Julian years = 25x 19 Julian years (= 25x 235m)

NOW CAUTION because 25x 19 Julian = 475 Julian (not 475 egyptian)
and so 19x 25 egyptian = 475 egyptian (not 475 Julian)
475 Julian years are 4 months longer than 475 egyptian years

It was Moses who discovered and argued the 475-year lunar dates as a 25 year calendar versus 19 year in 1554 BC with Jannes based on 2029-1554 BC. Our first month should be Mosesary not January. Janus is a thief of credit and glory and money like Thomas Edison was. Moses noted this 4-month season of 120 days in 1554 BC noting records from 2029-1554 BC. The winter solstice of both years also marks the foundation of Stonehenge in 1554 BC Jan 4 solar eclipse proving that when 1st dynasty Ur collapsed in 2030 BC because of human longevity cut off by 700 years, the human populace reached England in 475 years.

Thus 475 Julian years expects:
absent moon 332 BC Jun 10 at 19:04 UT
332 BC Jun 10 (Pamenot 29) -144 AD Jun 10 (Epipi 28)
332 BC Jun 15 (Parmuti 4) -144 AD Jun 15 (Mesor 3)
332 BC Jun 16 (Parmuti 5)-144 AD Jun 16 (Mesor 4)
332 BC Jun 18 (Parmuti 7) -144 AD Jun 18 (Mesor 6)
to absent moon 144 AD Jun 18 at 20:39 UT

absent moon 332 BC Jun 10 at 19:04 UT
332 BC Jun 10 (Tir 24) to 144 AD Jun 10 (Aban 23)
332 BC Jun 15 (Tir 29) to 144 AD Jun 15 (Aban 28)
332 BC Jun 16 (Tir 30) to 144 AD Jun 16 (Aban 29)
332 BC Jun 18 (Amerdad 2) to 144 AD Jun 18 (Adur 1)
to absent moon 144 AD Jun 18 at 20:39 UT

So here we have Feb 17 as Parmuti 4 plus four months (120 days) is Jun 16 as Mesor 4. Giving Aiyaru (Iyyar) the traditional 29 days results in the Greek new month as being last crescent or absent (this has existed in Egypt):

332 BC
absent moon Jun 10 at 19:04 UT
Jun 10 =Pamenot 29 (Tir 24) =Daisios 29 (Aiaru 29)* death
Jun 11 =Pamenot  30 (Tir 25)=Panemos 1 (Sivan 1)
Jun 15 =Parmuti   4*  (Tir 29)=Panemos 5 (Sivan 5) death
Jun 20 =Parmuti 9 (Amerdad 4*)=Panemos 10 (Sivan 10) death

144 AD
Julian = civil Egypt (civil Persia) = lunar
Jun 16 = Mesor 4* (Aban 29) = Daisios 29 (Aiyaru 29)*
Jun 17 = Mesor 5 (Aban 30) = Panemos 1 (Sivan 1)
Jun 18 = Mesor 6 (Adur 1) = Panemos 2 (Sivan 2)
Jun 18 absent moon at 20:39 UT
Jun 21 = Mesor 9 (Adur 4*) = Panemos 5 (Sivan  5)

     If in 144 AD they presumed the date to be Zoroastrian Amerdad 4 (=Persian Parmuti 4 = Egyptian Parmuti 9) this Daisios 29 would be expected as Adur 4 (Mesor 9) on Jun 21, this would be the new cresent moon following Jun 18 at 20:39 UT. It is easier to see Panemos 1 as the last crescent of Jun 17 or as the absent Jun 18 (Jun 17 being Daisios 30) than to see Jun 21 as Daisios 29 merely because it is Adur 4.

     So in 144 AD it is easy to see lunar Daisios 29 equated as Mesor 4 counting back 475 years to Parmuti 4. So did 144 AD decide the false correlation of 332 BC.

The ones calculating would think this Persian Parmuti 4 (Amerdad 4) was on Jun 20 (not 15) in 332 BC. Because Adur 4 is Jun 21 in 144 BC (is it still an absent new moon). Was Alexander's death calculated in this year 144 AD as the Armerdad 4 of 332 BC intending Jun 20 (not its Egyptian Parmuti 4 of Jun 15 in 332 BC). And of course drift in a false 19-year calendar of both Babylon and Jews proves that Daisios 29 was Jun 10 not Parmuti 4 Jun 15 nor Amerdad 4 Jun 20.

332 BC
absent moon Jun 10 at 19:04 UT
Jun 10 =Pamenot 29= Tir 24= lunar Daisios 29 (Aiyar 29)
Jun 11 =Pamenot 30= Tir 25= Pamenos 1 (Sivan 1)
Jun 15 =Parmuti 4*= Tir 29 = Pamenos 5 (Sivan 5)
Jun 16 =Parmuti 5  = Tir 30
Jun 17 =Parmuti 6  = Amerdad 1
Jun 18 =Parmuti 7  = Amerdad 2
Jun 19 =Parmuti 8  = Amerdad 3
Jun 20 =Parmuti 9  = Amerdad 4*

 ( 475 years later)
The 25-year calendar says that the phase of the moon should be the same in both of these years on the date Parmuti 4, and on the date Amerdad 4.

144 AD
Feb 17 =Parmuti 4* (Tir 29) = Peritios 29 (Tebet 29)*
Feb 18 =Parmuti 5 (Tir 30) = Dystros 1 (Shabat 1)
Feb 19 =Parmuti 6 (Amerdad 1) = Dystros 2 (Shabat 2)
Feb 20 =Parmuti 7 (Amerdad 2) = Dystros 3 (Shabat 3)
Feb 21 =Parmuti 8 (Amerdad 3) = Dystros 4 (Shabat 4)
Feb 21 absent moon at 10:07 UT*
Feb 22 =Parmuti 9 (Amerdad 4*) = Dystros (Shabat 4)
(this Amerdad 4 is a Persian Parmuti 4)

The 19-year calendar says that a the phase of the moon should be the same lunar date in both years on Jun 10 or Jun 15 or Jun 20.

Jun 16 =Mesor 4* (Aban 29) = lunar Daisios 27 (Aiyar 27)
Jun 17 =Mesor 5 (Aban 30) = lunar Daisios 28 (Aiyar 28)
Jun 18 =Mesor 6 (Adur 1) = lunar Daisios 29 (Aiyar 29)*
Jun 18 absent moon at 6:20 UT
Jun 19 =Mesor 7 (Adur 2) = lunar Panemos 1 (Ziv 1)
Jun 20 =Mesor 8 (Adur 3) = lunar Panemos 2 (Ziv 2)
Jun 21 =Mesor 9 (Adur 4*) = lunar Panemos 3 (Ziv 3)
(this Adur 4 is a Persian Mesor 4)

This means Alexander could have died either Jun 10 or Jun 15 or Jun 20. Because the correlations exist in 144 AD not in 332 BC,

A* did they have the recorded date 332 BC Amerdad 4 (Jun 20) and then assume that because Amerdad 4 is Peritios 29 in 144 AD that by calculation with Daisios 29 of 144 AD on Mesor 4 (Jun 16), the Amerdad 4 or Parmuti 4 of 332 BC had to be Daisios 29 (ignoring that Parmuti 4 is Jun 15 and Amerdad 4 is Jun 20).

B* did they have the recorded date 332 BC Parmuti 4 (Jun 15) and then assume that back in 332 BC that Mesor 4 and Adur 4 are/were the same, so that with Mesore 4 in 144 AD being Daisios 29 on Jun 20 and being also Aban 29 on Jun 20, that Parmuti 4 (July 15) back in 332 BC must have also been Daisios 29 (presumed equal to Amerdad 4).

C* did they have the recorded date 332 BC Parmuti 4 (Jun 15) and then assume that back in 332 BC that Mesor 4 and Adur 4 are were the same, so that with Mesore 4 in 144 AD being Daisios 29 on Jun 20 and being also Aban 29 on Jun 20, that the Jun 20 back in 322 BC must have also been Daisios 29 on Amerdad 4 (presumed equal to Parmuti 4).

D* did they have the date 332 BC Daisios 29 (Jun 10) and assume that because Daisios 29 was Mesor 4 in 144 AD that it was Parmuti 4 in 332 BC.