Also, I often use the term BC instead of B.C.E. Please substitute B.C.E for BC. It is a habit I'm sure I'll persist in. As you know the designation of BC is considered "Before Christ". But that would only be the case if BC was really before Christ. The birth of Jesus was in 3 B.C.E so BC is not technically before Him.
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
The year the Temple was finished being built (not furnished) was completed in the 8th month. Let's remember the dedication occurred in the 7th month.
This misdirection is so nonsensical that I had to actually laugh. Of course I’m quite aware that the dedication followed the completion of the building, and would have been in October 959 BCE following the completion in November 960 BCE (Tishri dating). And… that still leaves his math off by two years for the 480/490 years.
You can see from above that they simply looked at where Mars was and concluded it is in Praesepe and then let that be the NEW meaning of Nangaru.
More misdirection. Notice that he doesn't say what Mars did supposedly 'enter and leave' in his mangled chronology. On the required date in the imaginary chronology, 5 May 512 BCE (ignoring the impossible date for the later solstice), Mars was nowhere near Praesepe, nor was it near Cancer. For the 12 minutes that Mars was observable before sunrise on the morning of 5 May or 6 May, Mars was behind Taurus, not in Cancer. Worse still, for him, Mars didn't 'enter and leave' anything notable in the dates required in your chronology, and was only visible for a few brief periods before sunrise each morning in that period.
Even in line 8 of N/W they claim that Mercury set. They would never have seen Mercury set as it set IN the brightness of the sun.
Mercury did in fact set after sunset behind Gemini on 31 May 568 BCE as expected (most of Gemini having set before Mercury). You're just outright lying at this point.
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
They would never have seen Mercury set as it set IN the brightness of the sun.
Just for completeness... Mercury (mentioned in line 9, not line 8) could in fact have been seen to set earlier in the evening in question, setting below the horizon a few minutes behind the sun on 23 May 568 BCE (or they could have just known where it was from previous nights).
In either case, the observation says Mercury was not visible because it had already set rather than that it was explicitly observed.
-
Jeffro
Me:
Mercury (mentioned in line 9, not line 8) could in fact have been seen to set earlier in the evening in question
He’ll probably leap on this because of the ambiguity of ‘could’, which is intended in the sense of maybe rather than was. 🙄 As previously stated, it is more likely that they simply knew Mercury had already set at the time of the observations in line 9 of VAT 4956, because they knew about Mercury’s position on previous nights.
And… that still leaves his math off by two years for the 480/490 years.
I’m also aware that if Nisan dating is used, he can twist it to just one year out, which doesn’t normally matter too much for normal ancient history purposes, but is critical for his type of numerological nonsense.
(Also, when I indicate years for when the temple was ‘actually’ built, I mean based on the Bible. The historicity of Solomon is disputed, and the temple may have been built considerably later than the period claimed in the Bible.)
-
jwposter
Again, 568 (-567) doesn't conform. Never said that Mercury didn't set. And the moon is not thick. Also, in 959 B.C.E, for the Israelites, their 7th month wouldn't be in November but on 9/19 would be the beginning of the first night of the month. Also, of course Mars was nowhere near Praesepe in -511. That is because N/W named Praesepe based on what they saw in -567. They didn't use Praesepe to find the year. They use the year to find Praesepe.
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
Also, of course Mars was nowhere near Praesepe in -511.
More tedious misdirection. Mars didn’t ‘enter and leave’ anything notable in the required period in your doofus chronology.
And the moon is not thick.
It was as thick as it could be expected to be on the specified day of the month.
Never said that Mercury didn't set.
Irrelevant misdirection, as is a picture of Mercury before sunset. The observation in question simply says Mercury had set prior to the time of the observation, not that Mercury was observed to set.
their 7th month wouldn't be in November
Didn’t say it was. 🙄 Temple construction was completed in the 8th month per 1 Kings 6:38. Try to keep up. (And yes, I know it corresponds to part of October and part of November, but the 8th month is mostly during November.) Maybe he just doesn’t understand what ‘Tishri dating’ means. 🤦♂️
Really getting the sense that you’re just trolling at this point.
-
jwposter
Again, on line 8:
8. On the 1st of Airu (Nisan had 30d ), while the sun still stood there, the moon became visible 4 cubits below the western rearward star of the Great Twins; it was wide, wore the tiara [ ... ].
The sun still stood there is a reference that the moon was spotted after sunrise. This observation would have taken place in the morning. But in -567 the moon is not luminated at sunrise. Therefore, there is no way they could determine that morning to be first crescent. But in -511 the crescent is illuminated in the observation at moon rise after sunrise. That is why later in the day as it drifts even further away from the sun that it becomes THICK during the evening observation.
-
Jeffro
Notice how he ignores all the problems and just moves on to the next thing he imagines he’s right about (variation of ‘Texas sharp shooter’ fallacy.) Bored now and don’t currently have access to astronomy software. Will comment later if I see fit.
-
joey jojo
jwposter
Again, on line 8:
The sun still stood there is a reference that the moon was spotted after sunrise. This observation would have taken place in the morning. But in -567 the moon is not luminated at sunrise. Therefore, there is no way they could determine that morning to be first crescent. But in -511 the crescent is illuminated in the observation at moon rise after sunrise. That is why later in the day as it drifts even further away from the sun that it becomes THICK during the evening observation
The new moon- or 'first crescent'- if thats what you mean- always happens AFTER sunset - not in the morning. It is visible in the western sky just after sunset. It sets quickly and is never visible in the early morning.
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
The sun still stood there is a reference that the moon was spotted after sunrise.
Obviously not. The observations in line 9 continue for the night of the 1st. The Babylonians started the day from the beginning of the evening, so it could not refer to the previous sunrise. 🤦♂️ It necessarily refers to an observation at and just after sunset.
But in -511 the crescent is illuminated in the observation at moon rise after sunrise.
Totally wrong. The moon was 0.4% illuminated that morning, which they wouldn't even notice at night let alone after sunrise.
That is why later in the day as it drifts even further away from the sun that it becomes THICK during the evening observation.
On the correct date in 568 BCE (evening of 22 May), the moon was 4.8% illuminated (which would indeed be considered thick for a new moon; this is because on the previous evening the illumination was only 0.9%, which they likely didn't notice), compared to 1.3% illuminated in your entirely wrong chronology on 3 May 512 BCE, which would not be considered thick at all.