VAT 4956 Astronomical Observations

by VM44 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  VM44,

  These just some personal musings between you and I, so no one else will know what I am thinking.

  To the average Joe Witness, these esoteric interpetations of ancient characters, results from astronomical software, and such, fly over their heads.

  I guess the average JW simply says, "that's what the 'brothers' in Brooklyn say, and they have the resources. End of story."

  All that the writer of the article needs to say, is that some anonymous people have conducted an undescribed unverified analysis and their unseen report supports the WTS. When this is done, that is good enough for a True Believer, because of who said it -- the WTS.

  What goes through my mind is that there is a number of astronomical tablets in the British Museum, which singly and together confirm the accepted dates for Nebuchadnezzar. There is thus the weight of evidence, not just VAT4956.

  Interestingly, the WTS relies on an astronomical tablet for its method of getting to 539 BCE, so the WTS should not deny the integrity of astronomical tablets out of hand. Pity is that "their" tablet has admitted errors, and it is a calculation, not an observation. So their arguments against records of calculated eclipses is an "own goal".

  Did you see the pic on page 32 of my Critique:

  http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_of_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf

  Doug
• 

  AnnOMaly

  THANK YOU for the quote. I hadn't seen this before.

  Yes you have, my fave muppet. I cited the article once and you busied yourself and found the quote. One of your other identities will remember.

  To get the thread back on track:

  Where to start our calculations from?

  According to Parker and Dubberstein's tables, 588 BCE's Nisanu 1 begins sundown April 3 while 568 BCE's Nisanu 1 begins sundown April 22. However, this won't be a straight-forward comparison using P&D's calendar, as will become apparent.

  A starting point for 588 is given in the WT article - p. 28, note 17 - namely, the eclipse of July 15 falling in the Babylonian month 3. Counting back from there, and remembering the alternate 29 and 30 day months as specified on the tablet, Nisanu 1 has to fall on May 2 at sunset.

  Therefore, the comparison is between the P&D 568 BCE year (based on interlocking tablet evidence) and the researcher's 588 BCE 'eclipse-in-month-3' based calendar.

  In addition, a useful resource (in addition to P&D's tables) to determine first naked eye visibility of the new lunar crescent, which heralds the first day of the month, can be found HERE
• 

  VM44

  So the first step is to determine for which Julian dates to run the astronomical software.

  The next step is to convert the VAT 4956 lunar observations into angular measurements.

  The third step would be performing the comparison.
• 

  Doug Mason

  VM44,

  Please do not ask me to comment or explain. I am certain your skills far exceed mine.

  I am simply providing this information as background, given your interest in Julian dating. From my simple reading of the following, it seems possible that caution needs to be exercised when plotting Julian dates into a system, since these guys seem to have a Julian day number (JDN) as well as a Julian ephemeris date (JED). Whether that has any significance for you, I cannot even begin to guess.

  Here then is the piece that speaks about converting from either the Julian or Gregorian calendar to the JDN (if that matters to you)

  Doug

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

  On a systematic solar calendar - such as the Julian or Gregorian system - it is a relatively straightforward matter to calculate the exact number of days between any two selected epochs. Most computations of this sort make use of the Julian day number (JDN), devised by Joseph Justus Scaliger (AD 1540-1609). This scheme is based on a cycle of 7980 Julian years, commencing in 4713 BC. The precise epoch from which Julian days are numbered is Greenwich noon on Jan 1 (Julian calendar) in that year. A major reference epoch is 1900.0 (i.e. Greenwich noon on 1899 Dec 31), for which the JDN is 2415020.0. Since most modern astronomical computations make use of terrestrial time, it has become customary to use the Julian ephemeris date (JED) where necessary; this begins at 12h TT.

  Various algorithms have been developed to convert from either the Julian or Gregorian calendar to the JDN, among the simplest being those deduced by Muller (1975), which make full use of the rules of FORTRAN. These are given in equations (1.20) and (1.21). Here J is the JDN, Y the year, M the month and D the day of the month; all variables are treated as integer.

  For any date AD on the Gregorian calendar:

  J=367*Y - 7*(Y+(M+Y)/12)/4 - 3*((Y+(M-9)/7)/100+l)/4+275*M/9+D+1721029. (1.20)

  For any date on the Julian calendar the following simpler formula applies:

  J=367*Y-7(Y+5001+(M-9)/7)/4+275*M/9+D+1729777. (1.21)

  I have employed these formulae in many of the computer programs which I have developed.

  (Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, pages 31-32, F Richard Stephenson)
• 

  Quendi

  bookmark

  Quendi
• 

  VM44

  Thank you Doug for that quote from Stephenson's book concerning Julian Day Numbers.

  It looks like Stephenson will be required reading for this research.
• 

  Doug Mason

  VM44,

  It seems to me that it is one thing to document the outcomes of calculations, however I think it is important also to document the input side.

  For example, what are the inputs? their criteria? any assumptions? how do these impact the results? and so on.

  Is it possible to run the program on a tablet for which there is no controversy as a double-check?

  OK. I know it's tough. All that the W/T did was to make an unsubstantiated claim, but I am interested in knowing that any results and outcomes can be substantiated, even if that ultimately requires a documented report.

  Doug
• 

  AnnOMaly

  With regard to Julian day numbers, don't worry too much about them. It depends on the software, but the more user-friendly astronomy programs will have all those calculations incorporated into their system, and any BC date you punch in will be Julian dating.

  Parker and Dubberstein's tables (these are a must-have and not expensive) are Julian dating - just remember that theirs are dates beginning midnight - the Babylonian 'day' would begin the previous evening, so e.g. if Nisanu 1 is listed in P&D as April 23, it actually means Nisanu 1 started, for the Babylonians, the previous evening (April 22) at sunset.

  1 cubit = 2° (other slightly different values have been suggested, but this is the one Sachs/Hunger and Furuli use).

  1° = 4 minutes of time

  'In front of' and 'behind' will likely be in hours/minutes of time (e.g. Right Ascension measurement).

  'Above' and 'below' will be in degrees and minutes of arc (e.g. declination).

  Hope that helps.
• 

  Doug Mason

  VM44,

  you have a pm.

  Doug
• 

  Alleymom

  VM44 --

  What would you think about taking an easier approach for the first go-round on this?

  If you are interested, we could just start by looking at the “Lunar Three” intervals on VAT 4956 and forget everything else for the moment. The so-called "Lunar Three" measurements just involve the times of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, and moonset, so they are quite easy to do.

  When Rolf Furuli went through VAT 4956 line by line a few years ago, I pointed out that he omitted the sunrise-moonset, moonrise-sunrise, and sunset-moonset measurements recorded on six lines of VAT 4956. He looked at the other measurements on those lines, but he just skipped over the Lunar Three measurements.

  And guess what? The “Lunar Three” intervals recorded on six lines of VAT 4956 are, by themselves, enough to disprove the WT’s date of 588/587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year.