VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jwposter

  “Behind”: the Akkadian word, arki, is abbreviated to ar2. The directions “behind” and “in front of” are defined in relation to the daily rotation of the sky which proceeds from east to west for an observer in the northern hemisphere, i.e. “behind” is “to the east of”, and “in front of” is “to the west of”.

  Notice above this is from the OBSERVERS point of reference. Anyone in their astronomy program can see in the northern hemisphere by simply clicking the days forward will see the constellations move from east to west just as described above. And this Front and Behind designation is from the observers point of view.

  This obviously causes problems for the -567 adherents. Again, they are caught in a problem when on the First day of the month that in -567 the moon is in Front of and not behind Taurus while at the SAME time Saturn is behind the Swallow.

  Swallow is part of Pisces but not Piscis_Austrinus which is the original designation in line 2.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  Anyone in their astronomy program can see in the northern hemisphere by simply clicking the days forward will see the constellations move from east to west just as described above.

  Yes, and that direction they're moving in... to the west... which is to the right... that's the front. Good grief.

  Even if you are looking due west in your astronomy program, the constellations still move further to the right when you step the time forward (amazing 😒).

  Swallow is part of Pisces but not Piscis_Austrinus which is the original designation in line 2.

  Wow. 🤦‍♂️ You can't just defer to an older translation because it's closer to what you want. The original text says SIM which is the Swallow. It doesn't say MUL.KU.

  Now... Praesepe...
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Let's test your skill...

  Is Venus in front of or behind Saturn?

  
• 

  Jeffro

  Which planet is in front?

  

  How about half an hour later?

  

  How about half an hour after that?

  
• 

  KalebOutWest

  You may think I am 110% crazy for doing this:

  Jeffro is correct. Everything, absolutely everything Jeffro has stated is right.

  I teach Jewish cultural studies, and have even done a thesis on VAT 4956.

  Though it helps to supply us with the date for the Exile, it is pretty much an boring piece of rock that nobody but Jehovah's Witnesses worry about these days.

  It's a significant find, mind you, and it plays a most important point in astronomical and historical science. But so much of this has already been confirmed by other methods.

  We may have our differences, but Jeffro's work here is solid. Running a computer simulation and drawing cartoon pictures won't teach you anything new that centuries of watching these things play out in the heavens and using good ole math can't.

  Besides, it's written in stone.
• 

  joey jojo

  Though it helps to supply us with the date for the Exile, it is pretty much an boring piece of rock that nobody but Jehovah's Witnesses worry about these days.

  Yes, but it is a smoking gun that casually disassembles the whole 607 - 1914 doctrine of the WT. The deceit they employ to try to discredit vat4956 is shameful.

  In their article - When was Jerusalem destroyed? (2011), they mention planets but do not cite what the tablets say about them, choosing to focus on the moon eclipses, which are prone to error and mis-interpretation.

  Using a program like Sky View Cafe , anyone can see for themselves what the unidentified Babylonian observer saw in the night sky in the year 567 BCE.

  https://skyviewcafe.com/
  
• 

  Jeffro

  joey jojo:

  In their article - When was Jerusalem destroyed? (2011), they mention planets but do not cite what the tablets say about them, choosing to focus on the moon eclipses, which are prone to error and mis-interpretation.

  Ah, yes... that dishonest piece of drivel... it's little wonder they avoid discussion of the planets.
  

  See also The Watch Tower Society’s 2011 attempt to defend 607 along with my summary of VAT 4956 in the correct chronology in my Divided Kingdom timeline and the problems with the JW interpretation of VAT 4956 in my JW chronology timeline.

  Feel free to let me know if any errors. (Not you, jwposter, you're not qualified.)
  
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  I appreciate the effort here from Jethro, this may be hard to follow for some but indeed important to show the nonsense of 607.
• 

  jwposter

  Sorry been busy. I have not had much time and wont have much time for the couple days or so. However, just catching up a bit. So I went in to Stellarium this morning and had a screenshot still sitting in my snipping tool I posted when discussing the subject of "front of", "behind" etc.. I notice that I was not presenting the correct information on what front of and behind is on some of the posts. So from now on I'm going to make a habit of verifying my view first. I'll believe I flipped the ecliptic and when I took the marking off for the screenshot was lazy about the verification.
• 

  jwposter

  I also want to say that I give more weight to the original Neugebauer and Weidner translation than I do to the Sachs and Hunger translation. The reason for this is nothing against the expertise of the latter but because I believe once the dates of the Neo Babylonian era were affixed where they are accepted today as roughly 626-539 BC that the astronomical analysis would be looked at from those years to further define some of the lesser understood cuneiform signs. Nothing wrong with that approach, in fact, it is necessary but leads to errors when this is done against the wrong years and the longer those years are used to create the dataset used for the analysis is in the wild, the longer the actual facts may allude us as the datasets derived from that analysis is further extended with errors.