Posts by Jeffro

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

Downloaded to read later.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

It’s too early for beer. Need coffee.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

🙄 How gracious. That’s the type of response I expect from someone who thinks everyone else is beneath them, including the false dilemma that someone must either know everything or nothing about a subject. (The aim here is to make Pete angry at me if Kaleb leaves, rather than calmly acknowledging that scholarship has varied regarding some dates.) I didn’t make any claim of being more versed in the subject, I was just right about one point that you don’t like. Get over it.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

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.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

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. 🤣

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

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. 🤦‍♂️

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

Your claim that the dates don’t fluctuate is simple wrong. For example, in the JW Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy (1999) they use 167-164 but in their other literature, all before 2015, they use 168-165.

You can apologise now, you smarmy so-and-so.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

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.)

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

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! 🤦‍♂️

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

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.