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:

Another great piece of our evidence for Jesus is that he entered his 30th year when Tiberius was in the 15th year of his reign. This further cements the 3 B.C.E birth of Jesus since we know that Tiberius became the emperor in 14 AD.

It's good that you say Jesus was in his 30th year, because they did indeed count ages ordinally at the time. However, Tiberius actually began to reign in 12 BCE (with Augustus). And this also places Jesus' first year in 4 BCE.

Your reckoning of Tiberius' reign from the start of his independent reign in 14 BCE would place Jesus' 30th year in 28 CE, which would place his first year in 2 BCE, which is not only incorrect, but also not consistent with your own nonsense.

Another piece we have to remember is the Sabbatical years.

No. We don't. That's just superstitious nonsense that you're asserting as a premise to fit your conclusion.

Please go away.

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:

Of course we now know that Herod's dating of his death to 4 BC is in error.

No, you just 'need' it to be 'in error' for your superstitious nonsense. But I've already demonstrated that your nonsense is thoroughly wrong all over the place from start to finish. And instead of dealing with any of the problems, you just bumble along to the next dumb assertion.

We know that he died after the lunar eclipse of Jan 10th in 1 B.C.E according to Josephus.

The eclipse in question was 13 March 4 BCE.

Please go away.

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

Good grief. You're just doubling down on your nonsense that assumes your conclusions. Just stop.

Clement of Alexandria quoted the year of Jesus birth very well with saying that it was 194 years, 1 month, and 13 days before the death of Commodus.

So? Clement, a Christian theologian, relies on Christian traditions that had developed up until his time. But putting Jesus' birth in 3BC would be after Herod's death, and the story breaks anyway. The date Clement assigns is one of various suggested dates by early so-called 'Christian fathers', because they actually didn't know the date. This is just more 'Texas sharp shooter' nonsense.

We know that Jesus death was in 31 AD because that is the 1st year of the 40 years to the Destruction of the 2nd Temple by the Romans. That destruction and 40 years also serving the type for those that follow Bible Typology.

Aside from this being superstitious nonsense at its core, it's obviously wrong if you're going by this 'typology' drivel, because 27 March 31 CE to 30 August 70 CE is less than a full 40 years anyway. You would need to start from 30 CE to fulfil 40 years by the time the temple was destroyed.

The traditional date of Jesus' death in the 'gospels' is unverifiable, and rooted in superstition to connect it to Jewish tradition about the Passover. We don't know the actual date of Jesus' death at all. But based on the traditional dating, he would have more likely died on 7 April 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

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.)