VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  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.

  No, doofus. I used the right year. But because of your wild departure from scholarship, the only way to identify a starting date for the year is anchored around the date of the solstice.

  But of course, you’ve dreamed up some convenient excuse for why ‘the solstice isn’t really the solstice’ in the tablet 🤦‍♂️, so there’s no way of knowing what date you’ve drummed up for the start of the year in your imaginary nonsense.
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro:

  No, doofus. I used the right year. But because of your wild departure from scholarship, the only way to identify a starting date for the year is anchored around the date of the solstice.
  

  No you used the wrong year because in -511 April 23rd would be 20 days into the lunar cycle. And obviously, line 2 is referring to the first through 3rd days of the month. Go back and study the correct year and come back and ask questions.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  No you used the wrong year because in -511 April 23rd would be 20 days into the lunar cycle.

  I used the right year. The fact that the start of the year can’t be aligned with the lunar cycle for that year is your problem, not mine. The date of the solstice is fixed, and the ‘justifications’ for your vast reinterpretation of history (including but not limited to dismissing the date of the solstice) exist only in your own mind. Come back when your work is peer-reviewed.
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro:

  But of course, you’ve dreamed up some convenient excuse for why ‘the solstice isn’t really the solstice’ in the tablet 🤦‍♂️, so there’s no way of knowing what date you’ve drummed up for the start of the year in your imaginary nonsense.
  

  You do realize that in -567, that the solstice would be even farther away from a true solstice than that reported in -511 don't you? So based on your argument you can't be supporting -567 since that would be farther away from the true solstice.
• 

  jwposter

  jeffro:

  I used the right year. The fact that the start of the year can’t be aligned with the lunar cycle for that year is your problem, not mine. The date of the solstice is fixed, and the ‘justifications’ for your vast reinterpretation of history (including but not limited to dismissing the date of the solstice) exist only in your own mind. Come back when your work is peer-reviewed.
  

  If you chose the date of April 23 on -511 as the first of the month you would be wrong because it is NOT the first crescent. Get that yet? Do you not see how easy it is for everyone reading this to just open their Stellarium and refute you? Therefore, you either don't get it or have the wrong month.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  But that narrative says that Saturn is FRONT of the Swallow but yet the astronomy shows that Saturn is BEHIND the Swallow.

  You're just wrong. (Your entire thesis is wrong, but you're also very wrong on this specific point.)
  

  Position for line 2, 23 April 568 BCE, before sunrise. Saturn is in front of the Swallow (Pisces).
  

  

  Position for line 9, 23 May 568 BCE, before sunrise. Saturn is in front of the Swallow (Pisces).

  

  Either you don't know how to use an astronomy program, or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'in front' means for astronomical observations.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  If you chose the date of April 23 on -511 as the first of the month you would be wrong because it is NOT the first crescent.

  I didn't choose the date. The date is dictated by the date of the solstice. Your alternative chronology is simply wrong.
  

  You do realize that in -567, that the solstice would be even farther away from a true solstice than that reported in -511 don't you? So based on your argument you can't be supporting -567 since that would be farther away from the true solstice.

  It is indeed becoming very evident that you do not know how to use an astronomy program.
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro:

  You're just wrong. (Your entire thesis is wrong, but you're also very wrong on this specific point.)
  

  Position for line 2, 23 April 568 BCE, before sunrise. Saturn is in front of the Swallow (Pisces).

  LOL, no, your wrong. In that context you posted Saturn would be BEHIND the Swallow. You do realize you can't pick and choose. Are you going to tell me that the moon was in front of Taurus on day one of Month 1? You see you're just making arguments without thinking because your a -567 apologist.
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro:

  I didn't choose the date. The date is dictated by the date of the solstice. Your alternative chronology is simply wrong.

  That is just nonsense. How does picking April 23 of -511 as the first day of the first month get derived from the Solstice being indicated on the 9th day of the 3rd month? Again, you're picking April 23rd which is 20 days into the lunar cycle. You do realize right that the months are by the LUNAR cycle and not the Solar cycle. Even then, I think someone that didn't know that wouldn't be as far off as you are.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  Are you going to tell me that the moon was in front of Taurus on day one of Month 1?

  22 April 568 BCE, sunset. Moon is behind Taurus, as stated in Line 1 of VAT 4956. Taurus sets within half an hour after sunset. Moon sets another half hour after, that is, behind.
  

  

  Just go away.