by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible
Jeffro, I don't have time to go through all you posted so I looked at your first instance where you stated:
-543 Mar 13 was a FULL eclipse. The tablet doesn't state that it was partial. It says it was omitted. And that is the case. Because on that date in Babylon, they would not have been able to see that eclipse because it was centered on the other side of the globe:
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0599--0500/LE-0543-03-13T.gif
Another thing to note for LBAT1420 is you can just look at item 3 entry for Obverse I (I,3):
Translation:
[Year 2. Month II.](after) 5' (months), omitted. Month VI was intercalary.
That is year -546 (547 BC)
You see the omitted is for the eclipse occurring 6 months later. But not for the first one (May 14th). That first occurrence IS observed otherwise it would have said omitted for that one also. Obviously there is 2 eclipses since they occur 6 lunar synodic cycles apart. It is that 2nd one that is omitted and not visible.
However, in year -602 (aka 603 BC, accepted by many for that year), they don't acknowledge they put month II as May 3rd and then calling it "prediction". That is their way of saying calculated or not observed. But that defers from the tablet. That is incorrect. That tablet makes it clear that the second one is the one omitted after 5 months and fits the event in -546.
Just go away.
Jeffro
You are in big trouble with your claims about VAT 4956 which conflicts with the research by Dr. Rolf Furuli and that of the 'celebrated WT scholars who have proved that Neb's 37th year mentioned in the tablet was in 588 BCE and not 568 BCE as a far better fit using the astronomical data available.
To show the complexity of trying to interpret the lunar and planetary data into a modern calendar system perhaps you should examine the website VAT 4956.com
scholar JW
I looked at that site already Jeffro - previous to your mention of it. I disagree with its analysis but I love the work and effort they put into the presentation. Again, I have an advantage in that I have an alignment of the Chronologies, the Priestly courses, Sabbatical years and Jubilees to the VAT4956 in 512 = 37 year of Nebuchadnezzar. The evidence I have for 530 BC as the year of the destruction of the Temple is far greater than any evidence the VAT4956 can provide.
I don't care how celebrated a scholar is if they are simply wrong. I'm not a JW, and never have been one. I'm just a researcher and felt this information may be helpful for those that were previously a JW.
I just care about the Truth and want to make sure where I can that I take part in shining it ii n darkness.
jwposter
I looked at that site already Jeffro - previous to your mention of it. I disagree with its analysis but I love the work and effort they put into the presentation. Again, I have an advantage in that I have an alignment of the Chronologies, the Priestly courses, Sabbatical years and Jubilees to the VAT4956 in 512 = 37 year of Nebuchadnezzar. The evidence I have for 530 BC as the year of the destruction of the Temple is far greater than any evidence the VAT4956 can provide.
----
Your methodology for determining 530 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is nonsense. The primary evidence for determining a date for the Fall must utilize the biblical 'seventy years of Jeremiah' for anything other method is problematic.
scholar JW
Scholar let me help you with that 70 years from Jeremiah.
They start in 530 BC. 530 - 70 = 460 (end of the 70 years and a Jubilee year is called at the 7th month of this year). There are then 490 (Daniels 70 weeks of years) from there to 31 AD when Jesus will be crucified and resurrected. There will be a jubilee called in this year also in the 7th month.
Now another thing you have to remember is that prior to the destruction there is 390 years of the Kings during the divided kingdom and then at the top of that is the reign of Solomon where he dedicated the temple in 950 BC (During the Jubilee).
But let's also remember, that during the destruction of the Temple, it was a Sabbath year or rather the going out of the Sabbath year. Who was in Temple service then? The first Course of the Priest. So for whatever year you come up with you have to make sure that year is aligned such that the First course is in service during the first week of the 5th month, and that it is sabbatical year. And that the Jubilee years fall into place as described. So you have a problem if you any where else but there.
The years here for the beginning of the Temple destruction and the death of Solomon are consistent with my analysis.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/3218801?journalCode=basor
Also, remember, the course of the Priests have to line up such that the 8th course is serving during the day of Atonement when Zacharias is visited by Gabriel and for the first course for both destructions of the first and 2nd temples. You see this isn't just about the VAT4956. It is just another validation. The other times are all aligned together. When you do this you will even see that 1 Kings 6:1 is not 480 years from the beginning of the Exodus but from the end of the Exodus. This means the Exodus would have taken place in 1479 BC. Did a Pharaoh even die then? - yes - Thutmose II. He didn't have a son take the thrown for many years (likely because his first born died.). His mummy was retrieved and bares the wounds consistent with the boil plague.
The evidence I have is like I said far greater than VAT4956.
Good grief, now ‘scholar’ is here. Maybe you two can just chat amongst yourselves about your competing superstitions. 🤷♂️
jwposter:
I looked at that site already Jeffro - previous to your mention of it.
I didn’t mention any site. And the site ‘scholar’ referenced is trash.
I just care about the Truth and want to make sure where I can that I take part in shining it ii n darkness.
By ‘Truth’ (capitalised), you actually mean your own religious superstitions. You’ve provided ample evidence that you don’t care about actual truth.
Just go away.
@ Jeffro
Calling me superstitious is just an Ad Hominem attack.
Jeffro
I didn’t mention any site. And the site ‘scholar’ referenced is trash.
---
Any information or site that presents an alternative viewpoint or interpretation is 'trash' just like your website with its pretty coloured charts.
scholar JW
