VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  Joey Jojo, let's take a look at Saturn in the VAT4596. Where is it located. It is located opposite the southern fish which means it is next to it.

  As previously explained, the indication of the solstice in VAT4956 locks in the other dates for the observations in the tablet. The date referenced in Line 2 of the obverse was before sunrise on 23 April. Saturn was behind Capricorn on that date in 512 BCE, and wouldn't be described relative to Pisces. Similarly, the observation of Saturn for Line 9 would more accurately be described as in front of Aquarius or behind Capricorn for 512 BCE. Things went downhill very quickly from there. Line 1 - the moon was in Capricorn, not Taurus. Line 3, the moon was in Aries, not anywhere near Virgo. Line 4, neither Jupiter nor any other planet was acronychal on the required date. Line 8, the moon was in Aquarius, not Gemini. Line 10, Mars was nowhere near Praesepe. I didn't bother continuing to check at that point.

  So either our 'esteemed' astronomer has completely fudged the dates or is just completely dishonest.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  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.

  Huh? If your astronomy program allows you to specify dates as BC (rather than astronomical years including a year 0), then 512 BC… is 512 BC! 🤦‍♂️
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  -543 Mar 13 was a FULL eclipse. The tablet doesn't state that it was partial. It says it was omitted.

  🙄 Based on your distorted chronology, the corresponding eclipse from LBAT 1420 would be the one in lines 8-10, Obverse I. It states:

  [Year 4. M]onth I, the 13th, middle watch, 3 bēru 5° after sunset, it began in the west and north. Three quarters [was covered.] It cleared in the north. The north wind blew.

  The full eclipse on 13 March 544 BCE (which is in any case too early to correspond to an eclipse in the first month of the Babylonian calendar) doesn't match, and nor does the tablet say the eclipse in question was omitted. Back in reality, the eclipse in question very neatly corresponds with the partial eclipse (84% covered) on 11 April 601 BCE.

  But feel free to specify some other line of LBAT 1420 that you imagine this eclipse corresponds to, and then I can tell you why that is wrong too. 😒

  (With some massaging, there is one possible line in LBAT 1420 that could be very awkwardly wrangled to align an 'omitted' eclipse with this particular eclipse in his broken chronology, but let's see where he's going with this... suffice to say, that one option breaks everything else for that portion of the tablet anyway.)
  
• 

  jwposter

  jeffro:

  Huh? If your astronomy program allows you to specify dates as BC (rather than astronomical years including a year 0), then 512 BC… is 512 BC! 🤦‍♂️
  

  I use the most popular software called Stellarium and NO it doesn't have BC dates. Year 0 is used as 1 BC.
• 

  jwposter

  jeffro:

  As previously explained, the indication of the solstice in VAT4956 locks in the other dates for the observations in the tablet. The date referenced in Line 2 of the obverse was before sunrise on 23 April. Saturn was behind Capricorn on that date in 512 BCE, and wouldn't be described relative to Pisces. Similarly, the observation of Saturn for Line 9 would more accurately be described as in front of Aquarius or behind Capricorn for 512 BCE. Things went downhill very quickly from there. Line 1 - the moon was in Capricorn, not Taurus. Line 3, the moon was in Aries, not anywhere near Virgo. Line 4, neither Jupiter nor any other planet was acronychal on the required date. Line 8, the moon was in Aquarius, not Gemini. Line 10, Mars was nowhere near Praesepe. I didn't bother continuing to check at that point.

  So either our 'esteemed' astronomer has completely fudged the dates or is just completely dishonest.

  Wanted to give you more time to bring up the Solstice mention. You see I waited for you to do so and then ignore the position of Saturn, and the Retrograde of Mercury under Mars. You see by doing so, you have shown that your not a skill craftsman in the application of logic. You focus on the more questionable aspect of the Solstice translation. I'm not disputing that it should say Solstice but what you are ignoring is that you're focus on the Solstice which is highly debatable on when it is declared is being preferred over the less questionable aspects of the translation as it relates to the location of Saturn and the retrograde of Mercury under Mars. You see in doing so you are ignoring the weightier matters of the evidence, showing that you are acting in the capacity of an apologist instead of a skillful craftsman in the application of logic. Those that support the -567 year dating of the Tablet will say that Saturn fits the translation but they use the translation where the Swallow is the constellation in the narrative. But that narrative says that Saturn is FRONT of the Swallow but yet the astronomy shows that Saturn is BEHIND the Swallow. And Mercury is not in retrograde under Mars on the first of the 3rd month. Therefore, those are far weightier matters than the questionable start of when the Babylonians start their Solstice during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The Solstice (if you studied this) has been defined in MUL.APIN as one means but various schemes have since been suggested. Meaning we don't know if a point was being used in the translation to indicate the Solstice should be sought or the very Solstice itself. Which in some schemes was related to the sighting of the arrow (Sirius). Therefore, the logical person would gravitate to the less questionable evidence that has a far more statistical relevance as in the location of Saturn and the retrograde afore mentioned.
• 

  jwposter

  jeffro:

  As previously explained, the indication of the solstice in VAT4956 locks in the other dates for the observations in the tablet. The date referenced in Line 2 of the obverse was before sunrise on 23 April. Saturn was behind Capricorn on that date in 512 BCE, and wouldn't be described relative to Pisces. Similarly, the observation of Saturn for Line 9 would more accurately be described as in front of Aquarius or behind Capricorn for 512 BCE. Things went downhill very quickly from there. Line 1 - the moon was in Capricorn, not Taurus. Line 3, the moon was in Aries, not anywhere near Virgo. Line 4, neither Jupiter nor any other planet was acronychal on the required date. Line 8, the moon was in Aquarius, not Gemini. Line 10, Mars was nowhere near Praesepe. I didn't bother continuing to check at that point.

  So either our 'esteemed' astronomer has completely fudged the dates or is just completely dishonest.

  You see your not even looking at the right year. You are looking at year 511 BC and not 512 BC. Maybe you don't understand when people use -511 in the context of an astronomy discussion. When someone uses a negative sign before the year in an astronomy discussion, they are denoting that the year is in relation to a year earlier in the B.C.E era. Therefore, when I say -511, I'm referring to 512 BC but in Astronomy software and context, the year is one year earlier as there no year 0 in B.C.E designations. Haven't you ever notice that the Nasa site marks the years in B.C.E one year earlier for their eclipse data? Get in the right year and then come back to the debate.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  I use the most popular software called Stellarium and NO it doesn't have BC dates. Year 0 is used as 1 BC.

  O…K… 🤷‍♂️ you’re the one who said your astronomy program had no year zero. 🤦‍♂️
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  You see your not even looking at the right year. You are looking at year 511 BC and not 512 BC. Maybe you don't understand when people use -511 in the context of an astronomy discussion. When someone uses a negative sign before the year in an astronomy discussion, they are denoting that the year is in relation to a year earlier in the B.C.E era. Therefore, when I say -511, I'm referring to 512 BC but in Astronomy software and context, the year is one year earlier as there no year 0 in B.C.E designations. Haven't you ever notice that the Nasa site marks the years in B.C.E one year earlier for their eclipse data? Get in the right year and then come back to the debate.

  Good grief. Thanks, genius. 🙄 I definitely checked the right year. Come back when your rewrite of all scholarship is peer-reviewed. 🤣
• 

  jwposter

  jeffro:

  O…K… 🤷‍♂️ you’re the one who said your astronomy program had no year zero.

  Yes, I did, sorry for the mix up. To clarify, my software does have a year 0 which is equivalent to -1 BCE. And the year that I'm using in that software for the 37th year is year -511 which correlates to actual year - 512 BCE.
• 

  jwposter

  jeffro:

  Good grief. Thanks, genius. 🙄 I definitely checked the right year. Come back when your rewrite of all scholarship is peer-reviewed. 🤣

  No, you used the wrong year. The first of the month would not have started April 23rd in 512 BCE. Go check it again and come back with more of your critical analysis.