Edited - messed up. Sorry.
Alleymom
JoinedPosts by Alleymom
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
And here is BM 80920, No. 56, from Sack's Amel-Marduk.
The month was later corrected by C. B. F. Walker. The tablet actually reads month 7, not month 4. -
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
Here is BM 58872, No. 79 from Sack's Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C. A Study based on Cuneiform, Old testament, Greek, Latim and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates., 1972.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
AnnOMaly post 2052 --- Here is the Sack "completely upset" quote in context.
The scans are of pages 2 and 3 of Ronald H. Sack's Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C. A Study based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources.With Plates., 1972, Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer. Posted with permission.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
(Some of the following is taken from a private letter sent to Doug Mason) ...
I have emphasized before that the BIG LIE in Part One was the assertion (repeated in the summary) that secular scholars mainly base their conclusions on the writings of classical historians and on the canon of Ptolemy. The Society knows this is not so (see my comment #1) and they ADMIT it in Part Two (see my comment #2). Comment #1 -- If you search a WT library CD for Society citations of Raymond Philip Dougherty you will see that they have been quoting from his 1929 book for more than 50 years, most recently in the 11/1/2011 article, so they know full well the importance of the dated cuneiform tablets. As early as 1929 Dougherty could say that the king list based on the cuneiform tablets was the unimpeachable standard for questions of neo-Babylonian chronology. So all the blah blah blah in Part One about mistakes in Josephus and Berossus and the canon of Ptolemy, all of which will make the average reader's eyes glaze over, is irrelevant, pure and simple. Secular scholars place far more weight on the primary sources -- the contemporary cuneiform tablets. Secondary and tertiary sources (Berossus, cited in Josephus) are ... secondary and tertiary. :-)
Comment #2 -- Has anyone else noticed this? They ADMIT on the first page of Part Two, the second column, that scholars base their calculations on ancient cuneiform documents! Take a look at the graphic in the upper left hand corner of page 22 of Part Two. It's titled "Part One Established the Following Points." The summary repeats in slightly different wording the assertion from Part One about secular historians basing their conclusions on the writings of classical historians and on the canon of Ptolemy. Then take a look ON THE VERY SAME PAGE over in column 2, where they say scholars' calculations are based on cuneiform documents. So which is it? Do secular historians mainly base the date of 587 BCE on the writings of classical historians or on the cuneiform tablets? If it is on the basis of the cuneiform tablets, then why did they waste all that ink in Part One on the supposed errors in Josephus, Berossus, the canon of Ptolemy, etc.? Any errors in the writings of the classical historians are irrelevant if secular scholars actually base 587 BCE on the cuneiform tablets. The anonymous author of the article tries to cover all bases, but you can't have it both ways! [Edited for formatting. Still not satisfactory.] -
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
AnnOMaly, Post 2050: BM 75489 - Neriglissar's accession, month 2 is correct and, as mentioned above, is also anomalous.
Yes. On the scan of p. 26 of Sack's Neriglissar, posted above, he says:
First, the overlap of at least three months in the documents datable
to the reigns of Neriglissar and his predecessor, Amel-Marduk,
has, to my knowledge, no parallel in the Chaldean period ... [emphasis mine].Sack also writes:
One would be foolhardy, of course, to jump to sweeping conclusions
based on the contents of only one short text.Note also that he says the information in this document is "admittedly, scanty."
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
The previous image was too small. Here is a larger scan of page 26 from Ronald H. Sack's Neriglissar - King of Babylon.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
Edited to delete duplicate post.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
