🤦♂️ It was 29 June. And of course 9 July remains physically impossible.
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Thank you and now the said scholar can pursue the issue with the expert, Dr. Rolf Furuli
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
What a fascinating conundrum you have posited for now we have a lunar eclipse dated 15 July 588 BC and the solstice on the 9th of the 3rd month which is believed to be on 29th June 588 BC?
What we actually have is an eclipse on 5 July 568 BCE but that is asserted by JWs to have occurred on 15 July 588 BCE (which is impossible because Simanu never starts in July), and a summer solstice 6 days earlier which necessarily occurred within a day of 29 June regardless of the chosen year anywhere during the neo-Babylonian period, once again showing the JW interpretation to be impossible. All of the events, as well as the required intercalary month preceding Nisan, perfectly fit 568 BCE.
Let the Furuli spin begin. 😂
-
MeanMrMustard
The said scholar and WT scholars are well aware that the PD tables do not allow for the 20 year gap in NB Chronology and that is no big deal for PD tables are about Babylonian Chronology and WT scholars are all about Bible Chronology.
Oops. The real issue pokes out from behind the mask a bit here. Doesn't matter what the evidence shows - it's "no big deal" because he's always falls back on his "Bible Chonology".
-
Fisherman
In any legal proceeding, a proper foundation needs be be laid first so what authenticates Vat 4956?
-
MeanMrMustard
@Fisherman:
What do you mean? Are you saying VAT 4956 should possibly be tossed out as a fake?
-
Fisherman
What do you mean?
I asked what authenticates Vat 4956.
-
scholar
Jeffro
What we actually have is an eclipse on 5 July 568 BCE but that is asserted by JWs to have occurred on 15 July 588 BCE (which is impossible because Simanu never starts in July), and a summer solstice 6 days earlier which necessarily occurred within a day of 29 June regardless of the chosen year anywhere during the neo-Babylonian period, once again showing the JW interpretation to be impossible. All of the events, as well as the required intercalary month preceding Nisan, perfectly fit 568 BCE.
--
A nice summary of your position but WT scholars have shown that the lunar eclipse described in VAT 4956, 3 Simanu according to the Julian calendar would be 15 July 588 BC and that the New Year would have begun 2/3 May. The solstice 9th Simanu mentioned in the tablet is dated six days earlier thus would be 9 July 588 BC. No doubt much debate about this new research with continuing controversy but WT scholars are quite relaxed and comfortable about such controversies and so is the said scholar.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
I asked what authenticates Vat 4956.
What authenticates the claim that anonymous “researchers” supposedly analysed the lunar positions in VAT 4956 and found them consistent with 588BCE (which they aren’t)? 🤣
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
A nice summary of your position but WT scholars have shown that the lunar eclipse described in VAT 4956, 3 Simanu according to the Julian calendar would be 15 July 588 BC and that the New Year would have begun 2/3 May. The solstice 9th Simanu mentioned in the tablet is dated six days earlier thus would be 9 July 588 BC. No doubt much debate about this new research with continuing controversy but WT scholars are quite relaxed and comfortable about such controversies and so is the said scholar.
It’s not merely ‘my position’. 🙄 And it’s 15 Simanu, not 3, which can literally never be 15 July in any year of the neo-Babylonian period, for the same reasons that Nisan can never begin in May and the solstice can never be in July. So much for “WT scholars”. The only option for the JW position, despite their 2011 claim that researchers found it consistent with 588BCE, is to claim VAT 4956 ‘must be all wrong after all’. 🤦♂️