VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jwposter

  In my studies, I have concluded that year 530 BC was when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred and the Temple destroyed.

  I had determined this prior to investigation of VAT4956. I had already found that the Jubilees, Sabbaticals, Courses of the Priests, and chronology attested to this. Therefore, I went directly to what I had as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in my studies which was 512 BC. In my astronomy program however, it doesn't have a year zero, so I researched year 511 BC. And seen enough to know that it was a match to the Tablet VAT4956. I've never been a Jehovah Witness but heard they may be interested in this subject.

  But I want to take you a bit further because I also study Jubilees. 530 - 70 (years of captivity) = 460 BC. That year was a Jubilee year. Now Daniel gives you 70 weeks of 7 years in his prophecy which is 490 years. Those 490 years = 10 Jubilees exactly. Count from 460 BC and you will see that 460 - 490 = 30 AD. But there is no year 0. This means that Jesus was crucified and resurrected in 31 AD and later that year was heralded a Jubilee. That was the fulfillment year of Daniels 70 weeks. But let's go even further. Why 31 AD? Because the 2nd Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. And the Crucifixion was the beginning of that destruction when the Veil was rent. The Jews didn't really use year 0 much on their chronologies. Therefore, 40 years would be from 31 AD (inclusive) to 70 AD (inclusive). This was a type. Because there is FAR more than what you see there that is showing you the 2nd Coming. Understand that there are only 120 Jubilees given to the dominion of man. So if the 70 weeks started with a Jubilee year (460 BC) then that means they ended going into a Jubilee year (31 AD). Now given that there are 120 Jubilees, you may be wondering what was the number of that Jubilee year? - Just look to Moses. How old was Moses when he began to lead the congregation of Israel? - 80 years old. Now he died at 120 years old not able to cross in the Promised land. This was all a type. This means that Jesus began leading His Congregation in the 80th Jubilee and will do so for a SPIRTUAL Generation of 40 Jubilees to the 120th Jubilee. But remember, that Moses didn't cross into the promised land. Joshua did. The promised land is a type of the time coming when our Lord comes to rule and Joshua was a type of that 2nd Coming of our Messiah. We know it will be in a year when the Jubilee will come. So if you been reading closely, you should now know when that is with just some simple math.
• 

  joey jojo

  In my astronomy program however, it doesn't have a year zero, so I researched year 511 BC. And seen enough to know that it was a match to the Tablet VAT4956.

  I would be really interested to know exactly what you believe matched VAT4956 in 511 BC. Because the planets definitely would not have matched.
  
  
• 

  jwposter

  A lot Joey. To much to name really in the short time I have at the moment. Some key things are obviously the eclipse but something very often overlooked by other is that Retrograde of Mercury line 13 of the Obverse. Many don't realize that is what is being stated there. If you look at other interpretations such as those for 568 BC, you will see that often the explanations are wrong where they are describing something in FRONT of or BEHIND when the reality is that it is the opposite. I'm not sure if some people don't know the direction for that interpretation or not. I can say for sure that 512 BC is the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Any portions of the Tablet that are not translated to what can be simulated in software for year 512 BC is either a scribe error, transcribing error, translation error, or software or algorithm error or intentional corruption of the tablet. Also, there is Tablet LBAT1420 which contains eclipses during the reign which also are aligned from 512 BC as the 37th year. This gives us another Tablet that confirms that year.
• 

  Jeffro

  Definitely incorrect.

  Not only are the claims about astronomy obviously wrong, but this is clearly an attempt to ‘force’ details to fit a particular superstitious interpretation about Jesus.
• 

  Jeffro

  Any portions of the Tablet that are not translated to what can be simulated in software for year 512 BC is either a scribe error, transcribing error, translation error, or software or algorithm error or intentional corruption of the tablet.

  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  In other words, ‘my conclusion looks right if you ignore any details that aren’t consistent with my conclusion’. See also ‘unfalsifiable claim’.

  Please go away before my brain implodes. If it amuses me and/or when time permits, I’ll point out all the details of VAT4956 that are not consistent with your pet theory.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  In my astronomy program however, it doesn't have a year zero, so I researched year 511 BC. And seen enough to know that it was a match to the Tablet VAT4956.

  The solstice in 512 BCE was on 29 June (Julian calendar). This solidly identifies where the other observations must fit on the Julian calendar, irrespective of the date on which the Neo-Babylonian calendar might have begun for that year (since the person who started this thread obviously does not recognise the dates assigned by scholars for the Neo-Babylonian calendar). Line 16 on the front of VAT 4956 identifies the solstice on 9 Simanu. The same line says early in the next night, the moon was visible 3.5 cubits above α scorpii. It wasn't. The moon was below the horizon (in Cancer) and nowhere near Scorpio.

  Lines 12-14 on the front indicate observations including the moon being in Cancer, along with specific descriptions about the positions of Mercury, Mars, Venus and Jupiter (in Scorpio) during Simanu, prior to the 5th evening of that month. There is no possible match for those observations in 512 BCE. During the required interval, the moon was nowhere near Cancer; Mercury and Jupiter were never both observable together in the required period, Jupiter was always below the horizon when Mercury was observable at night, and Jupiter was in Leo.
  

  Well that was easy. I'm not convinced this person has verified anything about VAT 4956 in an astronomy program, and it is not worth expending the effort to continue checking the other observations in the tablet.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Also, there is Tablet LBAT1420 which contains eclipses during the reign which also are aligned from 512 BC as the 37th year.

  Not going to go into too much detail with this because this guy is wrong all over the place, but the following eclipses cannot be reconciled with his claim that LBAT1420 matches his alternative chronology:

  • -0543 Mar 13 Not a partial eclipse as described in tablet
    
  • -0543 Sep 05 Too early to fall in correct month
    
  • -0542 Aug 26 Too early to fall in correct month
  • -0521 Jan 10 Too early to fall in correct month
  • -0521 Jul 06 Too early to fall in correct month
  • -0521 Dec 30 Too early to fall in correct month
  • -0519 Nov 08 Not a total eclipse as described in tablet

  Note years are astronomical, e.g. -543 is 544 BCE, etc.
  
• 

  joey jojo

  This topic has been discussed here a lot. The great thing about the astronomical observations on the tablet is that they dont have to be perfect to be accurate.

  Conjuctions of planets in approximate relative positions to each other and to constellations are enough to establish a year. Simliar conjuctions may be hundreds or thousands of years apart. Anyone, or organisation like the wt, that emphasises eclipses, in relation to this topic, is purposely ignoring the superior evidence of planetary conjunctions.

  Ive read apologists arguing over the position of a planet to a degree or 2 and missing the entire point. The observer is describing celestial positions by holding out his arm and counting finger-breadths, its never going to be 100% accurate- but it doesnt need to be.
• 

  markweatherill

  The mathematics should be presented in pyramid inches to give a true picture of the worth of this theory.
• 

  jwposter

  Yes, JoJo, there are a lot interpretations that are just not precise just yet. Hopefully, with an understanding that the VAT4956 is in reference to year 512 BC, that cuneiform experts and Akkadian gurus or Assyriologists can investigate further with what is a known verified source. But I've got an advantage in that regard since I can validate the date through more means as stated prevously.