587/607 Question... (page 8)

Dansk

Double post and I have no reason why?!

Ian

If these alleged 'errors' are not typos then it comes down to Furuli's research and methodology and therefore Furuli is the person to contact. I cannot help you because I did not do the research or devise the methodology.

You seem to have a good handle on the subject so you should be able to direct specific questions in relation to the critical year of 588 BCE. When you get the answers then do all of us a favour and let us know.

scholar JW

scholar

Dansk

Josephus and the Bible agree as to the fact that the seventy years ran from the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return. Certainly. Nebuchadnezzer took Jewish captives in his 23 rd year but these were not from Judah. Judah was completely destroyed and desolated in the 18th regnal year of Nebuchanezzer which is exactly what the Bible writers depicted.

Josephus does not connect the last deportation with the seventy years as you claim because those Jews were not in Judah at that time but elesewhere. Josephus nowhere begins the seventy years from any other event excepting from the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple. Your claim are simply mistaken and misleading so just stick to the facts.

scholar JW

Alleymom

Scholar: If these alleged 'errors' are not typos then it comes down to Furuli's research and methodology and therefore Furuli is the person to contact. I cannot help you because I did not do the research or devise the methodology.
You seem to have a good handle on the subject so you should be able to direct specific questions in relation to the critical year of 588 BCE. When you get the answers then do all of us a favour and let us know.

Hi, Neil --

I don't need help understanding the charts and data on VAT 4956 in Furuli's book. Basically, he goes through the astronomical diary line by line and discusses the positions of the moon, planets, and stars. He also analyzes the cuneiform writing of the text to see whether the signs are clearly written and whether they can have other interpretations.

The point I most recently made was that in Furuli's 90-page discussion of VAT 4956, he skips over an entire series of very important measurements which are recorded in the diary.

It's one thing to massage the data, it's another thing to just ignore a whole set of measurements which don't fit his theory. And as it happens, the data which he ignores actually disproves his theory.

Here are some of the measurements which are recorded on the tablet and which Furuli totally ignores:

Month I, day 14: the time which elapsed between sunrise and moonset
Month II, day 26: the time which elapsed between moonrise and sunrise
Month III, day 1: the time which elapsed between sunset and moonset
Month XI, day 1: the time which elapsed between sunset and moonset
Month XII, day 1: the time which elapsed between sunset and moonset
Month XII, day 12: the time which elapsed between sunrise and moonset

Other scientists have examined this data and have confirmed that the sunrise-moonset, moonrise-sunrise, sunset-moonset, and sunrise-moonset intervals demonstrate that VAT 4956's measurements are from the year 568/567 BCE.

Furuli spends 90 pages going over all the other astronomical data in the diary, but he utterly ignores these time-interval measurements.

Regards,
Marjorie Alley

Alleymom

Alleymom: So then he comes up with May 2 for Nisan 1 by ASSUMING that VAT 4956 has data from 588, and then he counts backwards (retro-calculates).

Ann:Yes, as you know, Furuli confirmed to me that this was his method, that is putting the eclipse of July 15, 588 in month 3 and working backwards.

Hi, Ann --

Yes, I saw that. When I went back and checked the book, I saw that he had also explained it in the book.

It's a very Procrustean approach to calendar-making, wouldn't you say?

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving!

Regards,
Marjorie

Alleymom

It's a very Procrustean approach to calendar-making, wouldn't you say?

He s - t - r -e - t - c - h - e - s the year as needed to fit his theory (even if it means the New Year started in May for the first and only time in 700 years), and he also lops off the data (the time-intervals between sunrise and moonset, moonrise and sunrise, sunset and moonset, and sunrise and moonset) which conflicts with his theory.

Marjorie

AnnOMaly

LOL @ Alleymom!

That is the perfect description! I think I'll remember that phrase and wheel it out on an appropriate occasion.

Edited to add: It appears that one of the fundamental reasons why Furuli starts his new years in May is because he's under the impression that the Babylonian new year can only begin after the vernal equinox. This is one of the questions I asked him before he decided to reply privately (which he has yet to do).

scholar

Alleymom

Post 1167

You claim that Furuli has skipped over very important data in VAT 4956 well that may be because of the methodology that Furuli employed. Thus you can see the need to take upy your concerns with the author himself. In my view, Furuli provides an excellent summary of the facts as outlined on pages 122-3 showing that this tablet is not infallible.

scholar JW

Alleymom

Scholar: You claim that Furuli has skipped over very important data in VAT 4956 well that may be because of the methodology that Furuli employed.

Neil --

I know you have done graduate level reading, so you are familiar with scholarly methodologies.

Can you tell me what kind of "methodology" involves quoting from part of a line of cuneiform text and skipping over the data recorded in the rest of the line?

If you look at Furuli's Appendix C (pages 266 - 325), you'll see that in table C-2 (pp. 296-307) he discusses "Positions of planets and stars ." Section C-6 (pp. 311-324) is headed "A detailed discussion of the lunar observations."

So where is the discussion about the data on sunrise-moonset, moonrise-sunrise, sunset-moonset, and sunrise-moonset intervals? Unless the reader has a copy of the text of VAT 4956 in front of him, he would probably not realize that Furuli did not quote the lines in full.

If someone's "methodology" involves suppressing data unfavorable to his theory, I would suggest that a new methodology is needed.

Regards,
Marjorie

Alleymom

Here are some of the measurements which are recorded on the tablet and which Furuli totally ignores:
Month I, day 14: the time which elapsed between sunrise and moonset
Month II, day 26: the time which elapsed between moonrise and sunrise
Month III, day 1: the time which elapsed between sunset and moonset
Month XI, day 1: the time which elapsed between sunset and moonset
Month XII, day 1: the time which elapsed between sunset and moonset
Month XII, day 12: the time which elapsed between sunrise and moonset

(Excerpted from a previous post.)

Neil --

It is entirely within the reach of total amateurs to use either publicly available free software on the internet or serious commercial programs such as "TheSky6" to find out the times for sunrise, sunset, moonrise, and moonset for any date in history.

Once you have the time of sunrise, sunset, etc., you only need simple arithmetic to find the intervals between sunrise and moonset, sunset and moonset, etc., as recorded in VAT 4956.

This is not celestial mechanics. (It's not rocket science! ) You could do it yourself, Neil, and so could anyone on the board.

In my view, Furuli provides an excellent summary of the facts as outlined on pages 122-3 showing that this tablet is not infallible.

Whether VAT 4956 is or is not infallible is not the point.

The point is that Furuli skips the data on the time-intervals, and this data absolutely refutes his theory that the lunar observations in VAT 4956 are an "excellent fit" for the year 588/586 BCE.

Regards,
Marjorie

587/607 Question...

Share this