Posts by Jeffro

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:

The Birth of Jesus was in 3 BC and the Death and Resurrection was in 31 AD. This is important because a few things intersect at the time in the year of the Resurrection. We have to have correlation to the 70 AD destruction, correlation to the Jubilees, correlation to the 70 weeks Prophecy and correlation to the Festivals and to the Exodus timeline. While it is highly disputed one when the year of the resurrection and the Birth of Jesus was it really shouldn't be when we analyze the data.
Jesus was born during the Feast of Lights in 3 BC. And was crucified on the Jewish day beginning on March 25th (Julian) of 31 AD. We have a lot of good evidence for these dates.

You’re just asserting years that ‘fit’ your numerology. We don’t ‘have to’ ‘correlate things with jubilees’ at all; that’s just you fallaciously assuming your conclusion. There’s no evidence of a resurrection at all. Aside from that, Jesus would more likely have been born in 4 BCE (though the contradictory stories of his birth and early life aren’t particularly reliable sources) and died 30 CE.

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

Our tedious ’friend’ will likely object because the month did technically start on the evening of 21 May if using modern methods of identifying new moons. At the time, in the 6th century BCE, determination of the new month was based on observation. 0.9% was not observable.

His claims about visibility of the moon in his alternative days in 512BCE remain incorrect either way.

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

the moon was illuminated 3% with a magnitude of -5.17 which is clearly in the visible range.

This is definitely not in the visible range after sunrise, and it’s not the time of day indicated in the observation anyway.

The 2nd month in -567 was illuminated 0.9% on first crescent at evening observance on May 21st with a Magnitude of -4.18. … In other words, the moon was more visible during their morning observation for the 2nd month in -511 then the evening observance was in -567.

21 May wasn’t in the second month. The new month started when they noticed the new crescent (when it was thick), which was on 22 May. It wasn’t observable at only 0.9%.

I already provided the correct details for the correct days. Why are you now repeating details for the next morning for your chronology (which would not be observable after sunrise anyway) but the previous morning for the correct chronology (which I already provided)?

Please just stop.

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:

The sun still stood there is a reference that the moon was spotted after sunrise.

Obviously not. The observations in line 9 continue for the night of the 1st. The Babylonians started the day from the beginning of the evening, so it could not refer to the previous sunrise. 🤦‍♂️ It necessarily refers to an observation at and just after sunset.

But in -511 the crescent is illuminated in the observation at moon rise after sunrise.

Totally wrong. The moon was 0.4% illuminated that morning, which they wouldn't even notice at night let alone after sunrise.

That is why later in the day as it drifts even further away from the sun that it becomes THICK during the evening observation.

On the correct date in 568 BCE (evening of 22 May), the moon was 4.8% illuminated (which would indeed be considered thick for a new moon; this is because on the previous evening the illumination was only 0.9%, which they likely didn't notice), compared to 1.3% illuminated in your entirely wrong chronology on 3 May 512 BCE, which would not be considered thick at all.

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

Notice how he ignores all the problems and just moves on to the next thing he imagines he’s right about (variation of ‘Texas sharp shooter’ fallacy.) Bored now and don’t currently have access to astronomy software. Will comment later if I see fit.

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:

Also, of course Mars was nowhere near Praesepe in -511.

More tedious misdirection. Mars didn’t ‘enter and leave’ anything notable in the required period in your doofus chronology.

And the moon is not thick.

It was as thick as it could be expected to be on the specified day of the month.

Never said that Mercury didn't set.

Irrelevant misdirection, as is a picture of Mercury before sunset. The observation in question simply says Mercury had set prior to the time of the observation, not that Mercury was observed to set.

their 7th month wouldn't be in November

Didn’t say it was. 🙄 Temple construction was completed in the 8th month per 1 Kings 6:38. Try to keep up. (And yes, I know it corresponds to part of October and part of November, but the 8th month is mostly during November.) Maybe he just doesn’t understand what ‘Tishri dating’ means. 🤦‍♂️

Really getting the sense that you’re just trolling at this point.

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

Me:

Mercury (mentioned in line 9, not line 8) could in fact have been seen to set earlier in the evening in question

He’ll probably leap on this because of the ambiguity of ‘could’, which is intended in the sense of maybe rather than was. 🙄 As previously stated, it is more likely that they simply knew Mercury had already set at the time of the observations in line 9 of VAT 4956, because they knew about Mercury’s position on previous nights.

And… that still leaves his math off by two years for the 480/490 years.

I’m also aware that if Nisan dating is used, he can twist it to just one year out, which doesn’t normally matter too much for normal ancient history purposes, but is critical for his type of numerological nonsense.

(Also, when I indicate years for when the temple was ‘actually’ built, I mean based on the Bible. The historicity of Solomon is disputed, and the temple may have been built considerably later than the period claimed in the Bible.)

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:

They would never have seen Mercury set as it set IN the brightness of the sun.

Just for completeness... Mercury (mentioned in line 9, not line 8) could in fact have been seen to set earlier in the evening in question, setting below the horizon a few minutes behind the sun on 23 May 568 BCE (or they could have just known where it was from previous nights).

In either case, the observation says Mercury was not visible because it had already set rather than that it was explicitly observed.

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:

The year the Temple was finished being built (not furnished) was completed in the 8th month. Let's remember the dedication occurred in the 7th month.

This misdirection is so nonsensical that I had to actually laugh. Of course I’m quite aware that the dedication followed the completion of the building, and would have been in October 959 BCE following the completion in November 960 BCE (Tishri dating). And… that still leaves his math off by two years for the 480/490 years.

You can see from above that they simply looked at where Mars was and concluded it is in Praesepe and then let that be the NEW meaning of Nangaru.

More misdirection. Notice that he doesn't say what Mars did supposedly 'enter and leave' in his mangled chronology. On the required date in the imaginary chronology, 5 May 512 BCE (ignoring the impossible date for the later solstice), Mars was nowhere near Praesepe, nor was it near Cancer. For the 12 minutes that Mars was observable before sunrise on the morning of 5 May or 6 May, Mars was behind Taurus, not in Cancer. Worse still, for him, Mars didn't 'enter and leave' anything notable in the dates required in your chronology, and was only visible for a few brief periods before sunrise each morning in that period.

Even in line 8 of N/W they claim that Mercury set. They would never have seen Mercury set as it set IN the brightness of the sun.

Mercury did in fact set after sunset behind Gemini on 31 May 568 BCE as expected (most of Gemini having set before Mercury). You're just outright lying at this point.

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:

So this tells you that 1 Kings 6:1 where it mentions the 480 years is not from the Beginning of the Exodus but from the End of the Exodus. We know this because the dedication of the Temple is in the 60th Jubilee. ... Now since the Temple was dedicated in 950 BC, we can see that the 50th Jubilee was 490 years earlier in 1440 BC (crossing of the Jordan).

The temple reportedly took 7 years to build, so this word salad about the temple being dedicated 490 years after the end of the exodus (which is wrong anyway) would mean either that the 480 years ended 3 years before the end of the exodus, or that the temple was completed 487 years after the exodus ended.

Still waiting for those details about Praesepe...